|
The OIPC
has a long history of successfully mediating access and
privacy disputes. Last year we resolved fully 92% of
requests for review by mediation. Mediation may result in
any or all of the following outcomes:
o
Further
information is released to the applicant
o
The
number of records in dispute is reduced
o
An
access fee is confirmed or reduced
o
Additional records are located
o
A public
body that has violated privacy agrees to change its
practices
o
Outstanding issues that cannot be settled by mediation are
clarified
o
Issue is
referred to another agency for resolution (e.g.,
Ombudsman)
The
following examples of successfully-mediated requests for
review illustrate the range of access to
information/complaint issues and the role of mediation in
resolving disputes informally, and handled more quickly
and cheaply than through more formal legal processes.
Click here for the most current summaries.
·
Municipality improperly discloses employment information
An individual complained that a
municipality had inaccurately and inappropriately
disclosed personal information about the end of his
employment as a municipal employee. The municipality
resolved the complaint by issuing a media release
clarifying the information contained in the document
package it had earlier released to the news media and
expressing regret for releasing certain information. The
complainant was satisfied.
· Improvement
District Agrees to Improve Its Personal Information
Practices
A board member of an improvement district complained about
the district’s handling of personal information. She
complained that her personal information, as well as that
of others, was inappropriately collected, the district
failed to protect personal information, information that
should have been retained was inappropriately destroyed
and information that the applicant requested was destroyed
in an inappropriate manner.
The OIPC was of the view, after a lengthy investigation,
that the district had inappropriately collected personal
information. The OIPC also concluded that the district
did not retain personal information as required by FIPPA,
that information in the district’s custody or control was
inappropriately destroyed, that the records’ destruction
voided the applicant’s rights to access her personal
information and that the district had not met its
obligation to protect personal information from
unauthorized access, collection, use, disclosure or
disposal. The OIPC also concluded that the district,
despite having received countless hours of advice on how
to comply with its legal obligations under the Act, was
still disregarding its obligations and duties as set out
in FIPPA.
The OIPC made several recommendations, including that the
district develop proper procedures and processes to ensure
that board members and employees are aware of their duties
and obligations under the, that individuals’ access and
privacy rights be respected, that the district establish
written policies and procedures to ensure compliance when
collecting, using, disclosing and protecting personal
information, that the district revisit and ensure it
follows the policies and procedures that it already has in
place, and that the district consider a sworn oath for
employees and board members upon assuming office.
The district appeared to be taking positive steps to
ensure that it complies with FOIPPA and the OIPC’s
recommendations by developing written policies and
procedures.
·
School district inappropriately disclosed personal
information to a union
During the processing of a request for records by a school
district employee, the school district provided a copy of
the request to the employee’s union. The employee
complained that the disclosure violated her privacy. The
employer argued that the collective agreement required it
to send information about its employees to the union.
As a result of its investigation, the OIPC recommended
that the practice of automatically sending copies of all
freedom of information requests to the union be
discontinued and that the school district send only those
requests required for the union to fulfill its functions.
The employer agreed to change its practice.
·
Disclosure and correction of complaint information
During a land use application process by the complainant’s
neighbour,
the
neighbour
quoted, in a record that became part of the public record,
comments that the complainant had allegedly made. The
complainant believed that the quotes were inaccurate and
asked the public body to remove them. The public body
told the complainant that the records were part of their
permanent records and could not be altered or destroyed.
After an investigation, the OIPC found that the
neighbour
had no objection to the alteration and, since the comments
were not relevant to the application, the public body
agreed to sever them from the record.
|
