Every month, the IPC makes decisions on access to information appeals and privacy complaints. Here is a sampling of four recent decisions:
PO-3686 (University of Ottawa) – The university decided that a former employee’s request for a psychiatrist’s report about him was excluded from the scope of access legislation because of the exclusion for labour relations or employment-related information. We agreed with this decision and also rejected the requester’s claim that the exclusion was unconstitutional based on the right to freedom of expression in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
PO-3691 (Public Guardian and Trustee) – An individual submitted 40 requests to the institution within a 9-week period, which would project to over 230 requests in a year. We found this to be excessive and that the behaviour amounted to a pattern of conduct that interfered with the operations of the OPGT. We agreed with the institution’s assessment that the requests were “frivolous and vexatious” and restricted the individual to five active requests at any given time.
PO-3693-I (Workplace Safety and Insurance Board) – A request for the names of the board’s drug advisory committee members was denied citing the personal privacy exemption. We disagreed with this decision because the names identify the individuals in a professional capacity and therefore cannot be considered personal information. We ordered the information to be disclosed.
PO-3695 (Independent Electricity System Operator) – We upheld a decision by IESO to disclose the name of a requester who filed an access request. The individual filed the request in a professional capacity and therefore, their name was not considered personal information.
This post is also available in: French
