Latest IPC Decisions

On May 25, 2016, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario received an appeal under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) in relation to an access decision issued by the Township of McGarry (the Township). During the processing of the appeal, the lawyer for the Township wrote to the affected parties in order to notify them of the access request and to obtain consent to disclose the information related to them that had been identified as responsive to the access request.
In correspondence to the affected parties, the Township’s lawyer disclosed the name of the individual who sought access to the requested information. This Report finds that the information disclosed was personal information and that the disclosure was not in accordance with section 32 of the Act.
This Report also finds that the Mayor is the “head” of the Township, and that the head has not complied with section 3(1) of Ontario Regulation 832. Specifically, the head has not ensured that the Township has defined, documented and put in place reasonable measures to prevent and respond to unauthorized use or disclosure of records containing or revealing the identity of a requester.

The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario received a complaint alleging that the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board (the Board) contravened the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) when it disclosed a student’s personal information to a photography vendor. I conclude that the collection and use of students’ photographs for administrative purposes is in accordance with sections 28(2) and 31 of the Act, respectively. As well, I find that the Board’s notice of collection complies with section 29(2) of the Act and that the Board’s Service Agreement with the vendor included adequate provisions with respect to the protection of the students’ personal information. Furthermore, while I conclude that the Board’s disclosure of students’ personal information to the vendor for administrative and limited marketing purposes was in accordance with section 32 of the Act, I find that the disclosure for the vendor’s Pictures2Protect Program was not.

The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario received a complaint alleging that the Toronto District School Board (the Board) contravened the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) when it disclosed a student’s personal information to a photography vendor who in turn contacted the student’s parents to advertise their services. I conclude that the collection and use of students’ photographs for administrative purposes is in accordance with sections 28(2) and 31 of the Act, respectively and that the Board’s disclosure of students’ personal information to the vendor for administrative and limited marketing purposes was in accordance with section 32 of the Act. I also conclude that the notice of collection of student photographs does not comply with section 29(2) of the Act; nor did the Board’s Service Agreement with the vendor include adequate provisions with respect to the protection of students’ personal information.

The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (the IPC) received information that the Peel District School Board (the Board) may have contravened the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) when one of its teachers allegedly disclosed the names of students who had Individual Education Plans (IEPs) to her spouse, an investment representative, so that he could solicit business from their parents. In response, the IPC opened a Commissioner-initiated privacy complaint file to determine if the Board’s actions were consistent with the requirements of the Act. In this Privacy Complaint Report, I find that the information at issue is personal information and that the disclosure of students’ personal information from a Special Education Teacher to another teacher did not comply with section 32 of the Act. I also find that the Board’s use of students’ personal information, through the actions of the teacher, did not comply with section 31 of the Act. This report recommends that the Board require all staff sign confidentiality agreements when they are hired by the Board and annually thereafter.

The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario opened a Commissioner initiated privacy complaint under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act), against the City of Toronto (the city). The complaint relates to concerns regarding the collection of information belonging to licensed body-rubbers by the City of Toronto. In this Privacy Complaint Report I conclude that a body-rubber licensee’s salary, commencement date and termination date is personal information and that the collection of this information is in accordance with section 28(2) of the Act.
This report recommends that the City of Toronto amend section 545-337 of the Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 545, Licensing to reflect the City of Toronto’s practice of collecting the written contracts of services when there is a specific bylaw investigation.

The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario (IPC) received a privacy complaint from an individual involving the Town of South Bruce Peninsula (the town). The complainant was concerned that the town had improperly disclosed his personal information to another individual, without notice, in contravention of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. This Report finds that the town’s disclosure of the complainant’s personal information was not in accordance with section 32 of the Act.

The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC) was contacted by Innisfil Hydro Distribution Systems Limited (Innpower) to report a privacy breach under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act). Innpower informed the IPC that the laptop of one of its contractors had been stolen from a university library and that the laptop contained the unencrypted personal information of its customers. Given that the unencrypted personal information was disclosed by way of a theft, the disclosure was not consistent with section 32 of the Act. This report finds that Innpower responded adequately to the breach.

The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario opened a Commissioner Initiated Privacy Complaint under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act), against the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services (the ministry). The complaint relates to concerns regarding the collection and destruction of personal information contained in a recording which was made by a police officer with his personal cell phone during a traffic stop. In this Privacy Complaint Report I conclude that I am unable to make a finding as to whether the record at issue contained personal information as defined in section 2(1) of the Act, however, I conclude that if the recording had contained the personal information of the requester, it would have been an authorized collection under section 38(2).
This Report also considers whether the ministry has measures in place to ensure the preservation of records in its custody or control and recommends that the Ontario Provincial Police amend its Personal Electronic Device Policy.

The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner received identical complaints from two individuals (the complainants), alleging that the Ottawa Police Service (the police) inappropriately disclosed personal information pertaining to criminal charges against the complainants, to their employer, Correctional Services Canada (CSC), contrary to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act). In January 2017, all criminal charges against the complainants were withdrawn. This Privacy Complaint Report concludes that the police’s disclosure of the complainants’ personal information to CSC was not consistent with section 32 of the Act.

The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario received a complaint alleging that the Township of McGarry (the Township) contravened the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) when it disclosed a resident’s personal information to a third-party who in turn contacted the resident to advertise their services. The Privacy Complaint Report concludes that the Township’s use and disclosure of the personal information was not in accordance with sections 31 and 32 of the Act.

The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario received a complaint alleging that the Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic School Board (the Board) contravened the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) when it disclosed the complainant’s son’s Ontario School Record (OSR) during a proceeding filed against the Board with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO). The Privacy Complaint Report concludes that the Act prevails over the confidentiality provisions in sections 266(2) and 266(10) of the Education Act. The Board’s disclosure of the personal information from the OSR to the HRTO was in accordance with section 51 of the Act.

The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario received a complaint alleging that the York Region District School Board (the Board) contravened the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) when it disclosed the complainant’s son’s Ontario School Record (OSR) during a proceeding filed against the Board with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO). The Privacy Complaint Report concludes that the Act prevails over the confidentiality provisions in section 266(2) and 266(10) of the Education Act. The Board’s disclosure of the personal information from the OSR to the HRTO and the Board’s legal counsel was in accordance with sections 51 and 32(d) of the Act, respectively.

The complainant, whose residence is adjacent to the Monsignor Fraser College (the School) in Toronto, expressed concern with the use of video surveillance at the School, which is operated by the Toronto Catholic District School Board (the Board). The Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario (the IPC) finds that the Board’s collection of the personal information within the School property is in accordance with section 28(2) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act). However, the collection of personal information from outside the School’s property is not in accordance with section 28(2) of the Act.
This Report also considers whether the Board’s use, disclosure, retention and security of personal information are in compliance with the Act.

The IPC makes recommendations regarding the collection of personal information from outside the School’s property and revision of the Board’s notice and policy on video surveillance.

The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario received a complaint alleging that the City of Vaughan (the City) contravened the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) when making the complainant’s personal information available on the Internet in relation to a minor variance application made under the Planning Act. In response, this office opened a privacy complaint file to determine if the disclosure of the complainant’s personal information was in compliance with the Act.

The Privacy Complaint Report concludes that the City’s decision to disclose the complainant’s personal information via the Internet is not in contravention of the Act. However, the Report recommends that the City consider implementing privacy protective measures that obscures this type of information from search engines and automated agents.

The complainant, whose child attended the St. Thomas Aquinas Catholic School in Oakville (the School), expressed concern with the use of video surveillance at the School, which is operated by the Halton Catholic District School Board (the Board). The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario (the IPC) finds that the Board’s collection of the personal information is not in accordance with section 28(2) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act). The IPC recommends that the Board conduct an assessment of the video surveillance system at the School in a manner consistent with the Act, the Board’s internal policy and this Report.
With consideration that the Board may determine that video surveillance at the School is in accordance with section 28(2) of the Act, this Report also considers whether the Board’s use, disclosure and retention of personal information is in compliance with the Act.