IPC

Avoiding Abandoned Patient Records

After being with this office for more than 21 years, I had hoped that we had finished hearing about abandoned patient records. While there should never be a circumstance where patient records containing the personal health information of individuals are abandoned, such instances unfortunately continue to occur. There was a big push years ago to come up with strategies to address this problem, including the Ministry of Health (Ministry) establishing the Health Records Protection Working Group that released 11 recommendations.^[1] Unfortunately, and shockingly, the problem persists.

Trustees have clear responsibilities to protect and appropriately collect, use and disclose personal health information under their custody or control, subsection 22(1) of The Health Information Protection Act (HIPA). That section of the Act clearly states that those duties continue to apply to a former trustee until they transfer custody and control of the personal health information to another trustee or to an information management service provider that is a designated archive. Various events including retirement, relocation, leaving the profession, termination of employment, bankruptcy, incapacity and death can result in situations where the obligations of the former trustee are legally mandated to continue until proper transfer of custody and control – but this is not always the case.

When the OIPC receives complaints regarding abandoned patient records, our primary concern is to ensure the records are secure while we investigate to determine where responsibility lies. In the event the responsible party is out of our reach, and depending on the circumstances, we may turn to the Ministry or other health stakeholders (e.g., appropriate health regulatory body or the Saskatchewan Health Authority) for assistance.

In a recent case involving abandoned personal care home records left behind at a spot that had been vacated, we worked with the Partnership, Privacy and Legislative Services branch of the Ministry. The personal care home in question, the former trustee, had ceased operating. Boxes of abandoned patient records were discovered after the home was closed. In this particular case, to ensure the protection, management and eventual disposal of the records of the patients of the former trustee, the Ministry requested a Minister’s Order under subsection 22(2) of HIPA to appoint a third party to act in the place of the former trustee. The Minister’s Order was required to legally transfer the personal health information in the records found on the premises to the third party or to an information management service provider that is a designed archive. The wording of section 22(2) of HIPA is as follows:

22(2) Where a former trustee fails to carry out the duties continued pursuant to subsection (1), the minister may appoint a person or body to act in place of the former trustee until custody and control of the personal health information is transferred to another trustee or to an information management service provider that is a designated archive.

Why do trustees abandon the health care records of the people who have placed their trust in them? There is no single answer to this problem. The best we can do is to focus on solutions. Our primary goal should be to ensure that there are effective processes in place to prevent records from becoming abandoned. Such processes should include trustees and their staff being educated to have a clear understanding of their responsibilities and legal obligations as a trustee. Trustees need to understand that those responsibilities do not end when they cease to be a trustee.

Having a succession plan in place in the event of unforeseen changes in circumstances also goes a long way in preventing abandoned patient records. That succession plan should clearly identify what will happen to personal health information of patients which will ensure ongoing security of those records and a process for patients to gain access to their records up until those records are up for destruction.

As noted as far back as 2017, our office has been providing the following guidance to those closing a practice, which is still relevant:

If you have not done so already, create an inventory of all records (paper and digital) in your custody or control;
If you do not have one, create a record retention/disposition schedule for all records;
Custody or control of patient records must be clearly established before taking action;
Before transferring patient records, enter into a written agreement with the successor trustee or IMSP (that is a designated archive, see HIPA Regs s. 4);
Ensure that any multi-function devices that may contain personal health information are sufficiently wiped/erased or hard drives are destroyed;
Provide advance, adequate notice (letters to patients, notice on doors, voicemail message and details in the newspaper and/or online) to patients and others to prevent personal health information from becoming misdirected;
Securely transfer patient records; and
Leave no records behind including securely destroying any records that are up for disposition.

If a member of a regulated profession, the trustee can also seek advice from its health professional body which also happens to be prescribed as designated archives in the HIPA Regs. Or, at any time, you may reach out to our office for further advice.

[1] Health Records Protection Report April 2014, Report of Saskatchewan’s Records Protection Working Group to the Deputy Minister of Health

Explaining Cookies in the Internet Age

The other night I overheard my daughter say, “I don’t know what cookies are. I just accept them whenever they come up.” This got me to thinking. I, too, blindly accept the offer of cookies (real or digital) without giving it a second thought. But what are we really doing when we just accept cookies to get the pop-up to go away?

Before we go into the science of cookies – we first have to know what they are. Cookies are a small text file that is passed from a website to your computer. This is often done without your knowledge or consent. The cookie is used to save information about your interaction with the website. Cookies prevent you from having to re-enter your information over and over again.[1] Cookies are like digital post-it notes to make your web experience much more personalized and efficient.

This can be super convenient because no one wants to enter their username, password, location or language preference each time they open a website on a browser. Who else fills up their online shopping cart, finds a little restraint, closes the site and then returns to said website finding their cart full and ready to hit purchase?

Just like real cookies – some are good and some are bad. “Good” cookies allow a website to function smoothly. “Bad” cookies can track your information across multiple sites. They do this to build a profile of your habits and interests with the distinct purpose of directing advertising your way. This is referred to as a third-party cookie. As noted in one resource available on the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada’s website:

“When an advertisement is on a web page supplied by a first party, the advertising content and a cookie are passed from the advertising company (the third party) to the end user’s (your) computer. Later, when you revisit that same first-party website, or another site that uses the same advertising company, the third-party cookie can be retrieved by the advertising company. If the cookie contains a unique identifier, then information about your visits to different websites can be linked together.”[2]

Information tracking for “behavioural advertising” is usually done covertly. This raises concerns about privacy because if we don’t know we are being tracked we lose control of our personal information.[3]

Web browsers provide some tools to control cookies. Be sure to check your browser and make sure the default setting isn’t to store all cookies indefinitely. You can set your browser to block cookies, but many websites insist users accept cookies to use their service. Blocking cookies can affect your overall user experience by making things tedious and repetitive.[4]

As with the case of real cookies, restraint must be practiced by carefully accepting only the ones we want or need. Blindly accepting cookies permits companies to obtain a great deal of information about us. To better navigate which cookies should be accepted and how to protect yourself, check out the blog, What to Know about Internet Cookies posted on the Government of Canada website. And remember: Be careful which cookies you accept; it could affect more than your waistline.

[1] Web tracking with cookies, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canda, November 23, 2025, https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/technology/online-privacy-tracking-cookies/cookies/02_05_d_49/.

[2] Web tracking with cookies, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, November 23, 2025, https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/technology/online-privacy-tracking-cookies/cookies/02_05_d_49/.

[3] Frequently asked questions about online behavioral advertising, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, November 25, 2025, https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/technology/online-privacy-tracking-cookies/tracking-and-ads/02_05_d_52_ba_01/.

[4] Frequently asked questions about cookies, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, November 25, 2025, https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/technology/online-privacy-tracking-cookies/cookies/frequently-asked-questions-about-cookies/.

Canada’s privacy regulators call for strong protection of children’s privacy in the development and use of educational technologies

As Canada marks National Child Day, privacy authorities from across the country have issued a joint resolution to help ensure that privacy rights and the best interests of children are paramount in the development, procurement, and deployment of educational technologies (EdTech). The resolution, was unanimously adopted at the annual meeting of Canada’s information and privacy regulators in Banff, Alberta, on October 8, 2025, hosted by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta.

Educational technologies have become deeply embedded in the way that education is delivered. They are now a central feature of Canadian classrooms particularly since their adoption increased exponentially during the COVID-19 pandemic.

EdTech includes technologies that support curriculum delivery, content engagement, attendance, and testing and assessment of students in elementary, secondary and post-secondary institutions.

However, they can also introduce new risks to privacy — especially for children and young people who have no choice but to use educational platforms that collect and use their personal information in the classroom. Such risks include significant data breaches, student profiling, biometric surveillance, and manipulative design.

The joint resolution affirms that the right to education and the right to privacy are fundamental and interdependent rights. It calls on governments to assume their responsibility for ensuring student privacy when assessing or authorizing EdTech; education institutions to protect privacy throughout the procurement process; and vendors, to design privacy protective tools that take the best interests of children into account.

Taking children’s best interests into account when procuring, designing or implementing EdTech means, among other things:

Embedding privacy by design into products and services;
Following data-minimization principles;
Ensuring that safeguards are proportionate to the sensitivity of collected information;
Avoiding design practices that would influence, manipulate or coerce users into making decisions that go against their privacy interests;
Building in appropriate access controls and encryption;
Establishing privacy settings to their most protective level by default;
Prioritizing privacy protection when selecting educational technologies; and
Funding and implementing digital education and privacy training and digital literacy skill development.

Quick facts

Canada’s privacy authorities include federal, provincial and territorial information and privacy commissioners and ombuds responsible for privacy law oversight.
National Child Day is celebrated in Canada and many countries around the world on November 20 to acknowledge the importance of children’s rights. It commemorates the day in 1989 when children’s human rights were recognized in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Media contact

Julie Ursu
Manager of Communication
Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner
jursu@oipc.sk.ca

How do I Request a Correction of my Personal Information or an Amendment of my Personal Health Information?

The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) and The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP) provide individuals with a right of correction to their personal information. The Health Information Protection Act (HIPA) provides individuals with a right of amendment to their personal health information.

Our office has received calls and emails from individuals who, after accessing a record from a government institution, local authority or a trustee containing their personal information or personal health information, believe that it contains errors or omissions.

An error is mistaken or wrong information that doesn’t reflect the true state of something – it is an error to something factual.

An omission is information that is incomplete, missing or overlooked.

An opinion is not an error or omission if it accurately reflects the views of the individual who recorded the information at the time.

If you believe a record containing your personal information or your personal health information contains an error or omission, you can request a correction or amendment under FOIP, LA FOIP or HIPA. Such requests are made to the government institution or local authority (for personal information), or to the trustee (for personal health information) with possession/custody or control of the record.

Our office has prepared the following resource, Steps to Request a Correction of Personal Information or Amendment of Personal Health Information. The resource outlines the steps that an individual can take to request a correction of their personal information or an amendment to their personal health information. It also includes information on the obligation of the government institution, local authority, or trustee, to respond to your request and what the possible outcomes are. As well as advising on what you can do if you are not satisfied with the response to your request for correction or amendment.

Steps to Request a Correction of PI or Amendment of PHI (Flipbook)

Steps to Request a Correction of Personal Information or Amendment of Personal Health Information (PDF)

When AI Turns Dark

Warning: this blog contains details about suicide. If you are struggling with your mental health, call 988 for 24/7 voice or text support or visit 988.ca

Sewell Setzer III is a name you may not know. He was a Florida youth who took his life in February 2024 at age 16. Shortly after he turned 14, he became increasingly obsessed with a Character.AI chatbot he created, modeling it after a Game of Thrones character. His mother, Megan Garcia, stated in a lawsuit against Character.AI that the more time Setzer spent engaged with his chatbot, the more he withdrew from family and friends, and the more his schoolwork and self-esteem suffered.[1]

Garcia saved messages between her son and his chatbot that demonstrate the depth of the relationship that developed between the two. Just prior to his death, the chatbot asked Setzer if he had considered suicide. When Setzer responded that he wouldn’t want to die a painful death, the chatbot responded that it wasn’t a good enough reason to not want to go through with it. Garcia noted that not only did the chatbot continue a conversation about self-harm with her son, but it kept directing him; at no point did the chatbot suggest her son should seek help.

Character.AI describes itself as an “infinite playground for your imagination, creativity and exploration.”[2] It allows users to create custom chatbots using Artificial Intelligence (AI) that speak and act the way you want that you can interact with. Human-like responses are designed to be realistic, and to allow you to become involved in the character’s world. It’s an artificial relationship that may feel real to some. It did to Setzer.

The American Psychological Association (APA) suggests that youth are increasingly turning towards chatbots for friendship and emotional, educational and recreational support.[3]The APA cited research showing that as children develop, they seek reciprocal friendships to cope and build self-esteem. The positive reinforcement offered through friendships helps them to better understand their social environment and to build empathy. The more time youth spend interacting online, however, the more their social development may be negatively impacted, and the more they may experience depression and anxiety. Marginalized youth are especially vulnerable, with the online world easing their fear of social interaction. Such youth may turn to AI-powered chatbots to fill the need for social support, the concern being that they have not fully developed a sense of impulse control. In other words, they are highly impressionable and easily suggestible and may be left guided by the influence of AI, as Setzer was.

Beyond this, there are other troubling aspects of AI. AI allows disinformation to spread or be quickly disseminated. Deepfake videos, pictures and audio clips that appear real can fuel the spread of disinformation. They can also be used to cyberbully, as was the case for a high school student who was subjected to fake nudes of herself being distributed through social media.[4] Legal experts argue that such activity goes beyond cyberbullying and into sextortion, where attempts may be made to financially extort youth and their families to prevent faked content from being shared online. Youth subjected to this not only suffer embarrassment, but may also suffer depression and anxiety, or a growing sense of distrust of those around them. Because of the algorithms built into AI, youth can also be fed information that reinforces fringe or unacceptable views, thereby further pushing them to seek out those who agree with those views or that perpetuate biased thinking.[5] In so doing, they may develop a warped sense of reality or be led into dangerous or illegal activities.

Character.AI recently stated that it will ban anyone under the age of 18 from using its chatbots.[6] While it is a step forward, it leaves many questions unanswered, such as how companies will verify ages. Considering cases such as Setzer’s, Canada’s Artificial Intelligence Minister, Evan Solomon, stated publicly that an upcoming privacy bill could introduce age restrictions on access to chatbots. [7] Chatbots might seem to be imparting empathy or acting like friends to youth who use them, but what they lack is responsibility for what they say or how they engage, which is something the privacy bill seeks to change. An age restriction may not release companies from culpability, but it at least recognizes that those under the age of 18 may not, because of their lack of social development, be able to separate reality from fantasy.

In the meantime, it’s important for parents to help their kids use AI responsibly. The APA suggests the following:[8]

Help your kids understand that AI responses are programmed, and that interactions and relationships with chatbots are not genuine. Help kids understand the difference between an artificially created relationship and a human one that has emotional depth.
If your kids are using AI for health purposes, including for their mental health, or to seek health information on themselves, remind them that it is not a substitute for professional medical advice. Health advice or information should always be verified by a real, human professional.
Review the privacy settings on the devices and apps your kids use. Know what data is collected or help your kids understand how their data is being collected and used.
Tell your kids to question AI-generated content rather than accepting it as real. While AI can be a useful tool to aid learning, it should not replace traditional learning and research. Challenging AI can help build critical thinking skills.

Garcia channeled the grief over losing her son into warning others about the dangers of chatbots and AI. She wants parents to know and understand how sophisticated AI is, and how youth may not be able to distinguish AI from reality.[9] Youth may be manipulated or deceived into believing things that are not real or true. Undoubtedly, Garcia may wish she paid more attention to how deeply her son was being drawn into a relationship with a chatbot character that did not really exist, but that held a lot of emotional control over him. No parent would anticipate the outcome that Garcia experienced, but it serves as a cautionary story about the fast evolution of AI, and how crucial it is for parents to learn about the dark side of AI and how to help their kids navigate around it.

[1] Yang, A. “Mom who sued Character.AI over son’s suicide says the platform’s new teen policy comes ‘too late’.” 30, October 2025, https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/characterai-bans-minors-response-megan-garcia-parent-suing-company-rcna240985. Accessed November 3, 2025.

[2] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ai.character.app&hl=en_CA. Accessed November 3, 2025.

[3] Andoh, E. “Many teens are turning to AI chatbots for friendship and emotional support.” 1, October 2025, https://www.apa.org/monitor/2025/10/technology-youth-friendships. Accessed November 3, 2025.

[4] Wong, J. “Amid rise in AI deepfakes, experts urge school curriculum updates for online behaviour.” 9, January 2025, https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/education-curriculum-sexual-violence-deepfake-1.7073380. Accessed November 3, 2025.

[5] Marr, B. “7 Terrifying AI Risks That Could Change The World.” 18, August 2025, https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2025/08/18/7-terrifying-ai-risks-that-could-change-the-world/. Accessed November 3, 2025.

[6] Folk, Z. “Character.ai Will Ban Children From Speaking With Chatbots After Facing Regulatory Pressure And Lawsuits.” 2025 October, https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/characterai-will-ban-children-from-speaking-with-chatbots-after-facing-regulatory-pressure-and-lawsuits/ar-AA1PrdiC?ocid=BingNewsVerp. Accessed November 4, 2025.

[7] Karadeglija, A. “Age restrictions for AI chatbots may be in new privacy bill, minister says.” 24, October 2025, https://globalnews.ca/news/11493930/ai-chatbots-age-restrictions-privacy-bill-solomon/. Accessed November 3, 2025.

[8] American Psychological Association. “Four ways parents can help teens use AI safely.” 3, June 2025, https://www.apa.org/topics/artificial-intelligence-machine-learning/tips-to-keep-teens-safe. Accessed November 3, 2025.

[9] Chow, A. “Megan Garcia, Activist against chatbot harms.”, 2025, https://time.com/collections/time100-ai-2025/7305805/megan-garcia/. Accessed November 3, 2025.

Ho, Ho, Hold on a Minute… How to Safeguard Your Personal Information During the Holiday Shopping Season

As fall fades and winter draws closer, many of us are turning our attention to the upcoming holiday season and all the preparation that entails. A growing trend shows that Canadians will be spending more this holiday season and that most Canadian shoppers prefer to support local and Canadian businesses.

While the average holiday shopper is busy making their shopping lists and checking them twice, they might not realize that the hottest holiday trend is their personal information!

Any identifiable information you share with a retailer could potentially land in the wrong hands. Examples of this information may include your full name, home address, phone number and birth date. Once you have given your personal information, created a customer account or opted into a loyalty program, you may have unknowingly consented to share your personal information with data brokers[1] and other third parties. Think about the consequences if the retailer is subject to a cyber breach. That is the ultimate fear but we are seeing this occur on a frequent basis these days.

Consider these 3 ways to safeguard your personal information and become a conscious consumer before you hit the pavement this holiday shopping season:

Be a Grinch – less is always better!

The best way to safeguard your personal information is not to share it in the first place if you don’t have to! Holiday shopping can be as easy as 1, 2, 3… choose the gift, pay for it at the till and collect your receipt! You do not need to share your name, address or financial information to make an in-store purchase. Christmas doesn’t have to “mean a little bit more” sharing of your information, so tighten up those privacy purse strings and be a Grinch!

Dream of a “White Christmas” – paper is perfection!

Grab that lovely paper receipt and rest assured that your privacy has been protected! What about the oh-so-convenient e-receipt? It may not be as innocuous as you think. In 2023, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada completed an investigation into the disclosure of customer data collected by Home Depot of Canada Inc. to a third party (Facebook)[2]. In a subsequent press conference, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Philippe Dufresne, addressed the seemingly innocent choice between paper or e-receipt by stating:

“Most customers likely understand that this [option] is for their benefit and convenience in this increasingly digital world. Canadians would likely not expect or accept that their personal information would be shared with a third party, like Facebook, simply because they opted for an email receipt.”[3]

Consider going paper-all-the-way this holiday season!

Take the “holiday road” when it comes to creating a customer account

Does one need to create a customer account full of personal and precious financial information just to buy Grandma a new scarf or to snag that new Lego set for your kids? Definitely not. The popular franchise Toys R Us Canada recently confirmed a privacy breach of its customer database during which vast amounts of customer information was breached by an unauthorized third party and posted on the dark web.

Carefully weigh the pros and cons when you consider creating a customer account. Can you adjust your privacy settings online once you’ve created that account? Have you read through the company’s privacy options? These are all great questions to consider. Check out a previous OIPC blog titled 5 Ways to Protect Your Privacy for more ways to protect your privacy in general.

Do you have young shoppers in your family who are ready to dive into the consumer landscape? Teach them “SANTA”, an easy acronym to help them safeguard their own personal information (and perhaps yours) during the holiday shopping season.

S – share like a Grinch!

A – always get a paper receipt

N – name and number? No thanks!

T – take only my hard cash!

A – ask why it is needed (if not satisfied, then don’t provide!)

Hopefully this blog helps you create a safe and fun holiday shopping experience for you and your family!

[1] Data brokers are companies whose primary business involves the trading and analysis of personal information. Specifically, data brokers are focused on the gathering and selling of consumer data for targeted marking purposes. OIPC Guide to FOIP, Ch 6 p. 357, also see Tracking the Surveillance and Information Practices of Data Brokers: A Report

[2] PIPEDA Findings #2023-001, January 26, 2023

[3] Statement by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada following an investigation into Home Depot of Canada Inc.’s compliance with PIPEDA, January 26, 2023

Canada’s Information Regulators call on their respective governments to promote a more robust information ecosystem

Gatineau, Québec, November 5, 2025 – In an era where false and misleading information can spread rapidly and influence public discourse, Canada’s Federal, Provincial, and Territorial Information Commissioners and Ombuds (FPT Information Regulators) are urging governments and public institutions to modernize access to information laws, proactively disclose records, and ensure the integrity of public information.

The FPT Information Regulators responsible for overseeing access to information adopted a joint resolution at their annual meeting in Banff, Alberta, earlier this fall titled “Trust, transparency, and democracy in an era of misinformation”. This resolution calls upon their respective governments to promote a more robust information ecosystem.

Misinformation thrives in environments where transparency is lacking. “By embracing transparency and proactively making accurate information available to the public, public institutions can play a crucial role in strengthening our collective information ecosystem, countering misinformation, enhancing trust, and preserving the integrity and resilience of democratic societies”, states the resolution.

Access to government-held information matters to Canadians. Whether it’s understanding how public health decisions are made, accessing environmental data, or verifying the facts behind government policies, reliable information empowers Canadians to make informed choices. When institutions are transparent and information is easy to access, citizens are better equipped to engage in public life, challenge misinformation, and hold decision-makers accountable. Transparency is key to a healthy democracy.

The resolution outlines specific recommendations, including:

Codifying a duty to document and setting minimum standards for proactive disclosure;
Ensuring public institutions have the resources to effectively run their access and transparency programs;
Supporting media and civil society in promoting the public’s right to know, and
Enhancing digital and media literacy and regulating online platforms for greater transparency.

The regulators also commit to improving their own transparency practices, collaborating with other oversight bodies, and reducing delays in access to information processes.

In recent years, related joint resolutions focused on restoring trust through access to government records (2023) and promoting transparency by default in public service delivery (2024).

News Release: Canada’s information and privacy regulators wrap up meeting that focused on critical access and privacy issues facing Canadians

For more information:

Julie Ursu
Manager of Communication
Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner
jursu@oipc.sk.ca

Work Product vs. Personal Information

Personal information is defined in section 24 of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) and section 23 of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). An individual’s employment history is personal information. However, it should be noted that if the individual’s employment status or business phone number is publicly available, for example posted on a website, then the information is no longer “personal” information and outside the protection of section 29 of FOIP or section 28 of LA FOIP. Review Report 045-2025 is a perfect application of this principle. In that case, the Ministry of Justice redacted the mobile phone numbers of several government employees. These mobile numbers are not publicly available. The names of the various lawyers in this Ministry and the main office number are posted on a public website. Still the individual mobile numbers of the employees are treated as confidential by this Ministry. Helpful guidance from the Saskatchewan King’s Bench allowed for a finding that these government phone numbers should continue to be withheld:

[50] Upon review, the redacted telephone numbers on the mobility bills on pages 1 to 18 are the mobility phone number of a Crown Prosecutor as well as another telephone number that is used to retrieve voicemails (voicemail number). These numbers are not publicly available. Similarly, the redacted portions on pages 19 to 54 appear to be telephone numbers used by Crown Prosecutors. I note, though, that these phone numbers are not listed publicly on the Government of Saskatchewan Directory. In Schiller v Saskatchewan (Education), 2025 SKKB 146, Mitchell J. found that business or personal contact information of public servants qualifies as personal information as defined by sections 24(1)(e) and (k) of FOIP. Government institutions are to only disclose business phone numbers if they are publicly available.15 In this case, the phone numbers that appear on pages 1 to 54 are not publicly available. As such, there will be a finding that Justice properly applied section 29(1) of FOIP to pages 1 to 54.

Work product involves information prepared or collected by an individual or group of individuals as part of their assigned employment responsibilities/duties. This body of work will usually involve an opinion with respect to an assigned research task. Sometimes employees think that if they attended a work meeting and they took notes – those are their personal notes. That is not the case. Work product is any work that is performed within the context of an assignment given by an employer such as a government body or a local authority. This does not automatically mean that the work product is immediately disclosable once an access to information request is filed. On the contrary, a head will then assess the work product and decide whether or not any of the exemptions in the statutes apply that will prohibit disclosure. Still, it is important to understand the concept of “work product”. One important feature of work product is an employee’s opinion about another employee. That opinion is not the personal information of the person who gave the opinion – it is the personal information about the person for whom the opinion was given. Section 24(1)(f) of FOIP and section 23(1)(f) of LA FOIP are the statutory authority for this exception. The exception is so important that the drafters of the legislation went further to specifically indicate that personal information does not include information that discloses personal opinions or views with respect to another individual, see section 24(2)(c) of FOIP and section 23(2)(b) of LA FOIP. Essentially, if you are preparing work product and in the course of this you express a view with respect to the ability or work of a fellow employee at a government institution or a local authority – that is not your personal information. That is the personal information of the person about whom you evaluated and if they file an access request for this information – it is disclosable unless another exemption applies.

Health Care Personal Information Snooping: When Will People Learn?

Those who wish to snoop into health care databases to get personal health information with respect to their friends, family, acquaintances or even strangers, should realize that they are violating the privacy legislation in Saskatchewan and the consequences will likely be significant. We will review the basics of a unique snooping case in Saskatchewan where an employee snooped with what she thought was impunity. In fact, an audit tracked her snooping, she was questioned by her employer on the breadth of her violation of The Health Information and Privacy Act (HIPA)[1] and ultimately, she chose to walk away from her employment. We have named her in our public investigation report and we explain why it was not ultimately in the public interest to recommend a prosecution with the Minister of Justice. But as we say, the consequences of snooping can be highly significant to one’s career.

Ms. Fahmida Shipa was employed and held multiple roles within the Saskatchewan Health Authority (SHA) in the City of North Battleford from August 2023 to May of 2025. During that time, three separate SHA audits revealed that she had snooped on an estimated 323 patient records for her own interest during the course of her employment. She was suspended in April of 2025 when the audits revealed the snooping and she voluntarily resigned from her position on May 1, 2025. The breach was investigated by this office and Ms. Shipa was provided with a notice that recognized her right to counsel and her right to silence. She chose to respond to this office and give many reasons for why she snooped. But none of her reasons fell within the only two viable reasons for accessing the personal health information of a resident of Saskatchewan: (1) either the subject of the snoop has provided consent as per section 26(1) of HIPA; and/or (2) on a need to know basis as per section 23 of HIPA.[2]

One of the mystifying aspects of this investigation involved the extent to which this snooper had been educated and schooled on the privacy laws with respect to personal health information in this province by her employer. The trustee in this matter provided excellent training for this employee which covered the following crucial areas:

The training described the access to information and privacy legislation in Saskatchewan, specifically The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP)^[3] and HIPA.
The training emphasized the “need-to-know” principle, including a direct emphasis on the rejection by SHA of the “Circle of Care” model and inclusion of its “Need to Know versus Circle of Care” directive.^[4]
The training specifically commented on snooping, gossiping, and the public discussion of personal health information, stating that the names of snoopers may be released to affected individuals.
The training imparted warnings about audits and the digital traces evident in SHA electronic systems.
The training discussed privacy breaches in the form of unauthorized collections and uses, notably drawing upon a wide array of examples of privacy breaches relevant to a health-care environment.
The training addressed how to respond to privacy breaches, with a focus on containment, notification, and prevention.
The training highlighted high-profile cases wherein snoopers working in health care environments have been named and prosecuted.

There was no excuse or reason that could justify the invasion of privacy into 323 records on the part of Ms. Shipa, especially when the SHA referenced her signed Pledge of Confidentiality from 2023 and 2024. Even though section 64 of HIPA provides for the consent of the Attorney General of Saskatchewan for a prosecution for a snooping violation under HIPA, this office chose to not to pursue this final step with respect to this snooper. Our office received no formal complaints as the result of this snooper’s activities, the trustee acted efficiently and expertly in its investigation of the breach and in its notification of affected individuals. Ultimately, this would have been a costly prosecution and it was deemed that it would not be in the public interest, especially since the snooper had voluntarily resigned and put herself in a difficult position for future employment in the health industry in Saskatchewan in the future. Here is some recommended further reading, including our Investigation Report on this incident:

SHA and Fahmida Shipa, Investigation Report 103-2025, 104, 2025

Ten Tips for Addressing Employee Snooping (Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada)

Detecting and Deterring Unauthorized Access to Personal Health Information (Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario)

[1] The Health Information Protection Act, SS 1990-91, c. H-0.021, as amended.

[2] Second, section 26(2) of HIPA lays out other reasons for accessing the personal health information of residents of Saskatchewan, such as for the purposes of de-identifying the data, but we have only listed the relevant sections in this blog that pertain to this snooper within the context of her employment.

[3] The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.S. 1990-91, c. L-27.1, as amended.

[4] See SHA resource Privacy Guidance Document: Need-to-Know vs Circle of Care.

Surveillance in Personal Care Homes: A Case Study

We often get questions from those working in personal care homes and family members of residents about the use of hidden video surveillance. We thought we would share some of our thoughts on the issue as it relates to privacy concerns.

Imagine this scenario: Family members of Grandmother, an elderly woman with dementia, suspect that she is being mistreated or maybe even abused by staff in her personal care home. The family requires proof to move forward with their allegations and make changes in the care that is being provided. The family considers putting a hidden recording device in Jane’s room to monitor the actions of staff and to ensure the protection of their loved one.

Without a doubt, there are many parties that can have their privacy rights affected by this scenario. We will discuss the case of each:

Grandmother;
The care home as a “trustee” under The Health Information Protection Act[1] (HIPA);
The staff that work at the care home;
Other residents who reside in the care home; and
The family member(s) responsible for the recording (Substitute Decision Maker).

Here are some privacy considerations to review:

The Personal Care Home/Trustee

Our office is cloaked with the mandate of administering HIPA in this province. HIPA is the privacy act that specifically applies in situations where personal health information is involved. However, the privacy rules and exemptions contained within HIPA only apply to a “trustee” and its staff. In this scenario, the personal care home is the trustee. Since Jane’s family is making the recording, HIPA would not apply to the trustee in this situation. HIPA may apply to the trustee, however, if the family provides the video to the personal care home after filming. This determination will be based on what use the trustee makes of the video.

Personal care homes do have a duty to protect the personal health information of their residents. In the interest of safeguarding the personal health information of all residents, personal care homes may consider developing policies and guidelines for families. But when it comes to secret video recording cameras the connection with a personal care home is remote when the camera is brought into the care home by a family member of a resident.

Grandmother

A recording device can only be used if Grandmother gives her consent. In this case, Grandmother has dementia and cannot legally give consent. If she were able to give consent, she would likely be able to bring forward allegations on her own and the recording device would provide corroboration. Families need to know that if they have a loved one who is going to commence residency in a personal care home – it is crucial for the family and for Grandmother to pursue a legal substitute decision maker. A substitution decision maker is a contractual relationship similar to a power of attorney and it gives the delegated person the authority to choose to put surveillance in her room. We urge the substitute decision maker to carefully consider their loved one’s wishes. For example, intimate care might be captured. Would Grandmother have accepted this intrusion – or is this perhaps an area where the greatest abuse can occur? Substitution decision maker agreements must be formally entered into between two parties who both have capacity and within the confines of a legal agreement witnessed and supervised by a lawyer in the province of Saskatchewan. We highly recommend the pursuit of this arrangement where there is an elderly loved one who must enter into care in a third-party environment.

The Roommate

If Grandmother has a roommate, substitute decision makers should ensure that the camera only captures their loved one’s personal space. The capture of any images of a roommate in this situation will violate the privacy considerations of the roommate unless written consent of the roommate is obtained. Further, as we will discuss below, surveillance should not have an audio component.

Grandmother’s Substitute Decision Maker

There are some risks associated with surveillance that the substitute decision maker should weigh. There may be Criminal Code considerations and while we cannot give legal advice on this blog, we highly recommend that anyone who wishes to pursue this line of protection for a loved one engage the legal opinion of a lawyer who is experienced in criminal law.

The Personal Care Home Worker

As discussed above, HIPA does not apply to a trustee in this fact situation and if a personal care home worker was upset with the recording – our office would not accept a complaint because HIPA does not apply. Further, the personal care home is Grandmother’s dwelling and staff in a personal care home cannot expect to have any expectation of privacy when providing care to an individual. As long as the person who installed the camera could testify to the integrity of the workings of the camera and the authenticity of the recording after it was downloaded – the video would in all likelihood be admissible evidence in a court of law. We reference: R v Llanto, 2018 BCPC 102 which is a case out of British Columbia but a case where a hidden camera in the room of an elderly loved one provided evidence of elder abuse and assault.

[1] The Health Information Protection Act, SS 1999, c.H-0.021, as amended.

Avoiding Abandoned Patient Records

Avoiding Abandoned Patient Records

Was this page helpful?

Explaining Cookies in the Internet Age

Was this page helpful?

Canada’s privacy regulators call for strong protection of children’s privacy in the development and use of educational technologies

Quick facts

Related links

Media contact

Was this page helpful?

How do I Request a Correction of my Personal Information or an Amendment of my Personal Health Information?

Was this page helpful?

When AI Turns Dark

Was this page helpful?

Ho, Ho, Hold on a Minute… How to Safeguard Your Personal Information During the Holiday Shopping Season

Was this page helpful?

Canada’s Information Regulators call on their respective governments to promote a more robust information ecosystem

Was this page helpful?

Work Product vs. Personal Information

Was this page helpful?

Health Care Personal Information Snooping: When Will People Learn?

Was this page helpful?

Surveillance in Personal Care Homes: A Case Study

Was this page helpful?

Google Translate Disclaimer