Find a Report

Use the following tools to search IPC Reports. Please note that these tools replace the annotated section indexes.
The gavel symbol indicates when a decision of the public body was appealed to the Court of Queen’s Bench. The corresponding decision will also appear.

How to search

Use the search box and/or drop down filters below to search IPC reports. Use one or multiple filters at the same time. Please note that the section, subsection and clause filters are dependent on the legislation filter and each other.

The filters and search box work together. For example, if the filters are used to narrow a search down to 10 reports, any term entered into the search box will only search those 10 reports. Use the “Clear Search” button to start a new search.

Please note these filters search IPC Reports only. To search other documents on our website, use the search function found in the grey bar at the top of the page.

If you require the ability to search specific text within our reports please try using our Advanced Search.

clear search

Appealed to Court

Sort by: DATE , ASC

Most Recent Reports

Review Report 036-2017

April 18, 2017

LA FOIP 2(f)(i), 4(a), 5

The Applicant submitted an access to information request under The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP) to the City of Saskatoon (the City). The City responded by indicating it did not have possession or control over the records. The Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) found that the City has control over at least some of the records. In the course of the review, the City agreed it would request the information from Remai Modern Art Gallery (Art Gallery). The IPC recommended that it release such information to the Applicant.

Review Report 311-2016

April 12, 2017

FOIP 2(1)(d), 16(1)

The Applicant appealed to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) when he was refused access to a record by the Ministry of Justice (Justice). Justice withheld the record, in its entirety, pursuant to subsection 16(1) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The IPC found that Justice did not demonstrate that subsection 16(1) of FOIP applies.

Review Report 261-2016 & 284-2016

April 11, 2017

FOIP 2(1)(d)(i), 9(3), 9(4), 12(1)(a)(i), 16(1), 16(1)(c), 16(1)(d), 17(1)(a), 17(1)(b), 17(1)(c)

The Applicant requested records from the Ministry of Central Services (Central Services) related to a land transaction west of Regina. Central Services extended its response time an additional 30 days citing subsection 12(1)(a)(i) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). Central Services also withheld information in the responsive records citing subsections 16(1)(c), (d), 17(1)(a), (b), (c) and 18(1)(e) of FOIP. Upon review, the Commissioner found that the extension applied by Central Services was not necessary and not in keeping with FOIP. In addition, he found that subsections 16(1), 17(1)(a) and (b) of FOIP did not apply to some of the information in the record. He also found that these subsections, along with subsection 17(1)(c) of FOIP, applied to other information in the record and recommended the information continue to be withheld. Finally, the Commissioner recommended Central Services consider issuing fee estimates within the first three to ten days of receiving an access to information request.

Investigation Report 042-2017

April 7, 2017

HIPA 2(t)(i)

In a previous investigation, the Commissioner found that a doctor had inappropriately accessed personal health information in the Pharmaceutical Information Program (PIP). The Ministry of Health (Health) is the trustee, as defined by The Health Information Protection Act (HIPA), for PIP. Therefore, the Commissioner investigated Health’s role in responding to the doctor’s inappropriate accessing of personal health information in PIP. He made a number of recommendations, including notifying all affected individuals of the doctor’s inappropriate access within 30 days issuing this Investigation Report and that Health audit the doctor and his employees’ use of PIP.

Investigation Report 245-2016

April 5, 2017

HIPA 2(m), 2(t), 2(t)(xii)(A), 11, 21

The Office Manager of Professional Sport Rehabilitation Corporation (Pro Sport) proactively reported a privacy breach involving a ransomware attack on its electronic medical record (EMR) database. The Commissioner found that Pro Sport did not qualify as a trustee for the purpose of The Health Information Protection Act (HIPA). He also found that the personal health information in question was in the custody and under the control of Pro Sport and therefore parts of HIPA did not apply. He recommended that Pro Sport follow privacy best practices even though it was not a trustee. He recommended that Pro Sport only collect health services numbers in accordance with section 11 of HIPA. The Commissioner also recommended that the Minister of Health amend HIPA to include professional and business corporations whose primary purpose is the provision of health services.

Review Report 258-2016

March 30, 2017

LA FOIP 2(f)(xiii), 16(1)(b), 16(1)(c), 21(a), 23(1), 23(1)(b), 23(1)(f), 23(1)(k)(i), 28(1), 30(2)

The Applicant requested all information pertaining to concerns about her return-to-work and all correspondence where she was mentioned from Kelsey Trail Regional Health Authority (Kelsey). Kelsey provided the Applicant with some records but withheld information citing subsections 16(1)(b), (c), 21(a), (c), 28(1) and 30(2) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). Upon review, the Commissioner found that subsections 28(1) and 16(1)(c) of LA FOIP did not apply to some of the information in the record and recommended it be released. In addition, the Commissioner found that subsections 28(1), 30(2), 16(1)(b) and 21(a) of LA FOIP applied to some information and recommended that it continue to be withheld.

Review Report 002-2017

March 30, 2017

LA FOIP 2(f)(i), 7, 7(2)

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to the District of Lakeland No. 521 (Lakeland). The Applicant did not receive a response. He appealed to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The Commissioner found that Lakeland did not meet the requirements of section 7 of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). The Commissioner recommended that Lakeland implement policies and procedures to assist it in meetings its statutory obligations under LA FOIP.

Investigation Report 293-2016

March 29, 2017

FOIP 2(1)(d)(ii), 24(1.1); HIPA 2(m), 2(t)(i), 4(4)(h), 4(6)

The Complainant had rescinded his consent he gave to a doctor to disclose his personal health information to the Saskatchewan Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB). In spite of rescinding his consent, the WCB collected his personal health information pursuant to The Workers’ Compensation Act. 2013. The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) found that the collection provisions of The Health Information Protection Act (HIPA) and The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) do not apply. The IPC recommended that WCB ensure that it educate health care professionals who attend to or are consulted with respect to an injury of a worker do not unnecessarily collect the consent of injured workers.

Investigation Report 292-2016

March 29, 2017

HIPA 2(t), 2(t)(xii), 52(e)

The Complainant had rescinded his consent he gave to a doctor at CBI Health Group (CBI) to disclose his personal health information to the Saskatchewan Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB). In spite of rescinding his consent, CBI still disclosed his personal health information to WCB. The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) found that CBI does not qualify as a trustee under The Health Information Protection Act (HIPA). The IPC recommended that the Government of Saskatchewan amend HIPA to expand the definition of trustee. Further, the IPC recommended that CBI provide notification of its legal authority to collect, use, and/or disclose personal health information instead of seeking the individual’s consent.

Investigation Report 282-2016

March 28, 2017

HIPA 2(m)(i), 2(t)(xii), 16, 23, 23(2), 26

The Complainant requested and received a copy of a Pharmaceutical Information Program (PIP) audit report and discovered that Dr. Serhii Haidash of Eastside Medical Clinic had accessed her patient profile on PIP. The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) found that Dr. Haidash’s access of personal health information on PIP on January 24, 2009 was not in compliance with The Health Information Protection Act (HIPA).

Review Report 302-2016

March 28, 2017

FOIP 2(1)(d)(i), 7(2), 17(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c), 24(1), 24(1)(b), 24(1)(e), 24(1)(k), 29(1)

The Ministry of the Economy severed certain information from a 1001 page record pursuant to subsections 17(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c)(i), (ii), (iii) and 29(1) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The Commissioner found that subsections 17(1)(a) and 29(1) of FOIP applied to only portions of the record and recommended release of the rest of the record. He also found that the Ministry did not respond within legislative timelines and recommended that the Ministry closely monitor its response times to ensure the measures it has taken for improvement are effective.

Review Report 290-2016

March 28, 2017

FOIP 2(1)(d)(i), 17(1)(a), 24(1), 29(1)

The Applicant requested records from the Ministry of the Economy (Economy) related to a land transaction west of Regina. Economy provided the Applicant with some records but withheld information in other records citing subsections 17(1)(a), (b) and 29(1) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). Upon review, the Commissioner found that subsection 29(1) of FOIP did not apply to some of the information in the record and recommended it be released. In addition, the Commissioner found that subsection 17(1)(a) of FOIP applied to other information and recommended that it continue to be withheld.

Review Report 277-2016

March 24, 2017

FOIP 2(1)(d)(i), 2(1)(j), 16(1), 19(1)(b), 22(a), 24(1), 24(1)(b), 24(1)(f), 29(1)

The Applicant requested records from the Ministry of Economy (Economy) related to a land transaction west of Regina. Economy provided the Applicant with some records but withheld information in other records citing subsections 16(1), 19(1)(b), (c), 22(a), (b) and 29(1) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). Upon review, the Commissioner found that subsections 29(1) and 16(1) of FOIP did not apply to some of the information in the record and recommended it be released. In addition, the Commissioner found that subsections 19(1)(b), 29(1), 16(1) and 22(a) of FOIP applied to other information and recommended that it continue to be withheld.

Investigation Report 269-2016 & 303-2016

March 21, 2017

HIPA 2(m)(i), 2(m)(iv)(A), 2(t)(ii), 2(t)(vii), 15, 16, 16(b)(iii), 16(c), 23(1), 23(2), 24(4), 26(1), 26(2)

A complaint was made against WPD Ambulance (WPD). The Complainant alleged that a WPD employee took a picture of her injury after she had been transferred to the care of a hospital operated by the Prairie North Regional Health Authority (Prairie North). The Complainant was dissatisfied with WPD’s response, which included an apology and discipline of the employee in question. The Commissioner investigated what safeguards WPD and Prairie North had in place at the time of the incident. He found that there were not adequate safeguards in place and made several recommendations.

Review Report 035-2017

March 20, 2017

LA FOIP 2(f)(i), 23(1), 23(1)(b), 23(1)(h), 28(1)

The Town of Nipawin withheld records related to the engine failure of a truck it owned and operated pursuant to subsection 28(1) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP) on the basis that the records qualified as personal information as defined by subsection 23(1) of LA FOIP. The Commissioner found that only portions of the record qualified as personal information and recommended release of the rest of the record.

Review Report 003-2017

March 16, 2017

LA FOIP 2(f)(viii), 21(a)

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Good Spirit School Division (Good Spirit). Good Spirit withheld all the responsive records pursuant to subsection 21(a) of LA FOIP. The Applicant appealed to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC). The IPC found that subsection 21(a) of LA FOIP does not apply. The IPC recommended that Good Spirit release the records to the Applicant.

Review Report 273-2016

March 15, 2017

LA FOIP 2(f)(x), 7(4), 16(1)(a), 16(1)(b), 18(1)(b), 20, 23(1)(b), 28(1)

The Applicant requested records related to his harassment complaint from Saskatchewan Polytechnic (SaskPolytech). SaskPolytech released certain records to the Applicant but withheld personal information pursuant to subsection 28(1) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). It also refused to confirm or deny that further records existed pursuant to subsection 7(4) of LA FOIP. Upon review, the Commissioner found that Saskpolytech did not appropriately apply subsection 7(4) of LA FOIP and recommended that if responsive records existed, they should be released to the Applicant. He also agreed with the decision to withhold any third party personal information.

Review Report 009-2017

March 13, 2017

LA FOIP (2)(f)(i), 9(2) LA FOIP Regs 6(1)

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Town of Kindersley (the Town). In its response, the Town advised the Applicant that the records were ready to be picked up and that the total fee amount was $52.50. The Applicant appealed to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) because a fee estimate was not issued to him. The IPC found that the Town should have issued a fee estimate. However, its offer to reduce the fee to $50 was a reasonable solution to resolving this issue.

Review Report 001-2017

March 10, 2017

LA FOIP 2(f)(i)

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to the District of Lakeland No. 521 (Lakeland). The Applicant believed he did not receive all the responsive records. He appealed to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC). The Commissioner found that Lakeland conducted an adequate search for records and recommended that Lakeland take no further action.

Review Report 018-2017

March 8, 2017

FOIP 2(1)(d)(ii), 17(1)(a)

Saskatchewan Power Corporation (SaskPower) applied subsection 17(1)(a) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) to two information items provided to its Board of Directors and Executives. The Commissioner agreed that subsection 17(1)(a) of FOIP applied and recommended that SaskPower take no further action.

Review Report 288-2016

February 23, 2017

LA FOIP 2(f)(i), 7(2), 23(1)(f), 23(1)(g), 23(1)(k), 28(1)

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Town of Kindersley (the Town). The Applicant contacted the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) when he did not receive a response. Soon after contacting the IPC, the Applicant received a response. The Applicant was dissatisfied with the response. The IPC undertook a review. The IPC found that the Town did not respond within the legislated timeline and that it did not conduct an adequate search for records. However, the IPC found that the Town properly withheld some information in the records.

Review Report 287-2016

February 23, 2017

LA FOIP 2(f)(i), 7(2)

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Town of Kindersley (the Town). The Applicant contacted the office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) when he did not receive a response. Soon after contacting the IPC, the Applicant received a response. The Applicant was dissatisfied with the response. The IPC undertook a review. The IPC found the Town did not respond within the legislated timeline. However, the IPC found that the Town fulfilled the best practice of assisting the Applicant by making efforts to clarify the Applicant’s access to information request.

Review Report 286-2016

February 23, 2017

LA FOIP 2(f)(i), 6(3), 6(4)

The Applicant submitted four access to information requests to the Town of Kindersley (the Town). The Applicant contacted the office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) when he did not receive responses. The IPC found that it was reasonable that the Town seek clarification from the Applicant regarding his first two access to information requests. Also, through the IPC’s early resolution process, the Applicant received responses to his third and fourth access to information requests. The Applicant was dissatisfied with the responses. The IPC undertook separate reviews regarding the Applicant’s third and fourth access to information requests.

Review Report 313-2016

February 22, 2017

FOIP 2(1)(d)(i), 5

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Ministry of the Economy (the Ministry). The Ministry responded that the requested records did not exist. The Applicant appealed to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC). The Commissioner found that the Ministry conducted a reasonable search and that the Ministry had no obligation under The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) to create a record. The Commissioner recommended no further action from the Ministry, unless it could easily generate the information for the applicant.

Investigation Report 285-2016

February 3, 2017

FOIP 24(1)(d), 24(1)(e), 24(1)(k)(i)

The Complainant alleged that an employee of Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI) accessed her personal information inappropriately. The Office of the information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) was unable to determine whether a privacy breach occurred. The IPC recommended that SGI implement a solution that would enable it to determine with more certainty whether an employee’s access was for legitimate business purposes or not.

Review Report 229-2016

February 1, 2017

FOIP 2(1)(d)(ii), 2(1)(j), 19(1)(c), 22(a),

The Applicant requested records from Crown Investment Corporation (CIC) related to a land transaction west of Regina. CIC provided the Applicant with some records but withheld information in other records citing subsection 19(1)(c) and section 22 of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). Upon review, the Commissioner found that subsection 19(1)(c) of FOIP did not apply and recommended release of the information. In addition, the Commissioner found that subsection 22(a) of FOIP applied to other information and recommended that it continue to be withheld.

Review Report 280-2016 and 281-2016

February 1, 2017

FOIP 22(a)

The Applicant requested invoices for legal services provided to Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI). SGI applied subsection 22(a) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) to 32 pages of invoices and denied access to the record because they were subject to solicitor-client privilege. The Commissioner found that subsection 22(a) of FOIP applied to the record.

Review Report 306-2016

January 30, 2017

FOIP 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c)

The Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure (the Ministry) applied subsections 19(1)(b) and (c) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) to an agreement it had with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. The Commissioner found that the exemptions did not apply to the agreement and recommended that the Ministry release it to the Applicant. He also recommended that the record be released to an Applicant of a previous Review Report.

Review Report 235-2016

January 20, 2017

FOIP 3(1)(a)

The Applicant appealed to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) when he was dissatisfied with the Ministry of Economy’s (Economy) response to his access to information request. Economy had provided the Applicant with records from a registry that was partially severed. The IPC found that The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act does not apply to the information that is publicly available.

Review Report 136-2016 to 146-2016

January 17, 2017

FOIP 9(3), 9(4), 20

The Applicant requested records from Global Transportation Hub Authority (GTH) related to a land transaction west of Regina. GTH provided the Applicant with its decision letter denying access to all of the records citing section 20 of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). In addition, GTH advised the Applicant that it would continue the work on the requests after the Provincial Auditor’s report was released. Upon review, the Commissioner found that the decision letter was unnecessary, inappropriate and unauthorized under FOIP. For these reasons, section 20 of FOIP was not upheld.

Review Report 123-2016 to 135-2016

January 17, 2017

FOIP 9(3), 9(4), 20

The Applicant requested records from the Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure (Highways) related to a land transaction west of Regina. Highways provided the Applicant with its decision letter denying access to all of the records citing section 20 of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). In addition, Highways advised the Applicant that it would continue the work on the requests after the Provincial Auditor’s report was released. Upon review, the Commissioner found that the decision letter was unnecessary, inappropriate and unauthorized under FOIP. For these reasons, section 20 of FOIP was not upheld.

Review Report 206-2016

January 16, 2017

FOIP 17(1)(b)(i), 22(b)

The Global Transportation Hub Authority (GTH) applied subsections 17(1)(b)(i), 22(a) and (b) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) to records responsive to the Applicant’s request. The Commissioner found that subsection 17(1)(b)(i) of FOIP does not apply to the first sentence of the email dated Friday, May 25, 2012 at 6:04 a.m., and recommended its release to the Applicant. The Commissioner also found that the GTH appropriately applied subsections 17(1)(b)(i) and 22(b) of FOIP to the remaining records. The GTH advised the Commissioner it intends to comply with the recommendation.

Review Report 159-2016

January 11, 2017

FOIP 16(1)(a), 16(1)(d), 17(1)(a), 17(1)(b), 17(1)(f), 18(1)(d), 18(1)(f), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c), 20, 22(b), 24(1)(e), 29(1)

There were 179 records responsive to the Applicant’s requests that were withheld by the Global Transportation Authority pursuant to subsections 16(1)(a), (d), 17(1)(a), (b)(i), (c), (f)(i)(ii), 18(1)(d), (e), (f), 19(1)(b), (c), 20(a), (b), 22(a) and (b) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The Commissioner found that subsections 16(1)(a), (d), 17(1)(a), (f)(i)(ii), 18(1)(f), 19(1)(b), and 22(b) of FOIP applied to some of the record.

Review Report 078-2016 to 091-2016

January 5, 2017

FOIP 5, 6(1); FOIP Regulations 6(2), 6(3)

The Global Transportation Hub Authority (GTH) provided the Applicant with a single estimate of costs in the amount of $111,842.50 to process 15 access to information requests. The Commissioner found the GTH inappropriately provided one estimate of costs to respond to the 15 access to information requests and should have contacted the Applicant to attempt to narrow the scope of the requests prior to issuing the estimate of costs. The Commissioner also found the $100,160.00 fee to be inappropriate, as it was largely based on searching the email archive which would have not been an issue with effective records management policies and procedures in place. The Commissioner recommended the GTH has written procedures in place to properly address estimate of costs. The Commissioner also recommended the GTH establish procedures that complement the Guidelines for Government Communications During a General Election to ensure access to information requests are handled in the routine manner during the Writ period. Finally, the Commissioner recommended the GTH fully implement its ORS as well as adopt consistent records management policies and procedures including email and transitory records in accordance with the advice and guidelines provided by the Provincial Archives of Saskatchewan (PAS).

Review Report 064-2016 to 076-2016

January 5, 2017

FOIP 5, 6(1); FOIP Regulations 6(1), 6(3)

The Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure (Highways) provided the Applicant with a single estimate of costs in the amount of $69,645.00 to process 13 access to information requests. The Commissioner found Highways inappropriately provided one estimate of costs to respond to the 13 access to information requests and should have contacted the Applicant to attempt to narrow the scope of the requests prior to issuing the estimate of costs. The Commissioner also found the $66,160.00 portion of the estimate of costs to be inappropriate as it was not calculated pursuant to subsection 6(2) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Regulations. The Commissioner recommended that Highways ensures it has written processes in place to properly address estimates of cost. The Commissioner also recommended that Highways establish procedures that complement the Guidelines for Government Communications During a General Election to ensure access to information requests are handled in the routine manner during the Writ period.

Review Report 239-2016

January 3, 2017

LA FOIP 16(1)(a), 16(1)(b), 21(a), 21(b), 21(c), 23(1)(b), 23(1)(f), 23(1.1), 28(1), 30(2); HIPA 2(m), 27(1)

The Applicant requested all information pertaining to her return-to-work file and disability management from Kelsey Trail Regional Health Authority (Kelsey). Kelsey provided the Applicant access to some of the records but withheld portions of the records pursuant to subsections 16(1)(a), 16(1)(b), 21(a), 21(b), 21(c), 28(1), and 30(2) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). The Applicant appealed to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC). The IPC recommended the release of some of the withheld portions of the records.

2016

Review Report 223-2016

December 19, 2016

FOIP 15(1)(a), 15(1)(b), 15(1)(c)

The Applicant made an access to information request for results from tests and inspections of Husky pipelines. The Ministry withheld responsive records pursuant to subsection 15(1)(a), (b) and (c) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The Commissioner found that none of the subsections applied and recommended release of the records.

Investigation Report 062-2016

December 16, 2016

LA FOIP 23(1)(b), 28(2)(a); LA FOIP Regulations 10(b), 10(d), 10(f), 10(g)(i)

The Commissioner received a complaint from an individual who was not satisfied with the outcome of the investigation conducted by Keewatin Yatthè Regional Health Authority (Keewatin) into her concern that Keewatin inappropriately used her personal information (employee conduct) with other Keewatin staff. She was also concerned that Keewatin had disclosed her personal information to members of the Saskatchewan Registered Nurses Association (SRNA), Saskatchewan Union of Nurses (SUN) and the Saskatchewan Association of Health Organizations (SAHO). Upon investigation, the Commissioner found that Keewatin had authority to use and disclose the personal information in each case.

Investigation Report 212-2016

December 13, 2016

FOIP 26(1)(e)(ii)

The Complainant alleged that the Ministry of Social Services over collected her personal information. The Commissioner found that no breach occurred in regards to the collection of the Complainant’s personal information. However, the Commissioner recommended that the Ministry reevaluate its consent form for the Social Assistance Program.

Investigation Report 225-2016

November 28, 2016

HIPA 2(m), 2(t)(xiii), 16, 17

Patient files were being stored in the waiting area of the Northgate Medi Clinic (Clinic), easily accessible to any person who entered the Clinic. The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) found this matter to be a privacy breach. The IPC made several recommendations, including developing policies and procedures on how to protect and manage personal health information.

Review Report 126-2015

November 17, 2016

FOIP 12(1)(a)(ii), 15(1)(c)

The Applicant submitted an access to information request for records related to an investigation. The Saskatchewan Police Commission (SPC) denied access to the responsive records in full pursuant to subsections 16(1)(a), 17(1)(a), and 17(1)(b)(ii) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). SPC clarified in their submission that they were applying all of subsection 16(1) of FOIP and raised subsections 15(1)(b), 15(1)(c), 15(1)(j) and 15(1)(k) of FOIP to support the denial of access. The Commissioner found that it was reasonable for SPC to apply a time extension to respond to the Applicant’s request pursuant to subsection 12(1)(a)(ii) of FOIP. The Commissioner also found that SPC had appropriately applied subsection 15(1)(c) of FOIP to withhold the responsive records.

Investigation Report 237-2016

November 15, 2016

LA FOIP 2(f), 23(1)(k)(i), 25(2), 28(1), 28(2)(r),

The Complainant had concerns about the disclosure of his personal information in the Rural Municipality of Rosthern’s (the RM) council meeting minutes. The minutes were posted on the RM’s website. While the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) found that there is authority under The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP) for the disclosure of personal information, the IPC recommended the RM undertake best practices.

Review Report 177-2016

November 15, 2016

FOIP 2(1)(d)(ii), 17(1)(a), 17(1)(b)(i), 19(1)(b),

The Applicant made an access to information request for e-mails between the President and CEO of Saskatchewan Power Corporation (SaskPower) and employees. SaskPower denied access to the records indicating that subsections 17(1)(a), (b)(i), (g), 19(1)(a), (b) and (c) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) applies. The Commissioner found that subsections 17(1)(b) and 19(1)(b) of FOIP applied to portions of the e-mail and recommended release of the rest.

Review Report 157-2016

November 10, 2016

FOIP 16(1)(a), 17(1)(a), 17(1)(b), 18(1)(f), 24(1)(a), 24(1)(b), 29(1)

The Global Transportation Hub Authority applied subsections 16(1)(a), (c), (d), 17(1)(a), (b), (f), 18(1)(d) and (f) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) to portions of the responsive records. The Commissioner found that subsections 16(1)(a), 17(1)(a), 17(1)(b) and 18(1)(f) of FOIP applied to portions of the record and recommended release of the rest. He also found that some of the record qualified as personal information and recommended such be withheld pursuant to subsection 29(1) of FOIP.

Review Report 231-2016 to 233-2016

November 10, 2016

FOIP 9(4); FOIP Regulations 8(2)

The Applicant paid a deposit to the Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure (Highways) on July 20, 2016, to proceed with six access to information requests. Highways responded to three of the six requests on August 31, 2016, but had not responded to the remaining three as of October 27, 2016. The Commissioner found the Applicant met his obligations under The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The Commissioner also found Highways is not in compliance with FOIP as they did not meet the legislated timelines. Prior to this Review Report being issued, Highways responded to the Applicant. The Commissioner recommended Highways consider refunding the Applicant his deposit due to the excessive delays. The Commissioner also recommended that Highways within 90 days review their processes under FOIP to ensure they are meeting the legislated timelines and complying with the law and report back to my office.

Review Report 191-2016

November 9, 2016

FOIP 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c)

The Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure (the Ministry) applied subsections 19(1)(b) and (c) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) to an agreement it had with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. The Commissioner found that the exemptions did not apply to the agreement and recommended that the Ministry release it to the Applicant.

Review Report 185-2016

November 8, 2016

FOIP 18(1)(a), 18(1)(d), 18(1)(f), 18(1)(g), 18(1)(h), 19(1)(c)(ii), 24(1)(e), 24(1)(k), 29(1)

The Applicant asked Saskatchewan Power Corporation (SaskPower) for a copy of an agreement for the sale of CO2 with Cenovus. SaskPower applied subsections 18(1)(a), (b), (d), (f), (g), (h), 19(1)(a), (b), (c) and 29(1) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) to the record and denied access to all of the record. The Commissioner found that subsections 18(1)(a), (d) and 19(1)(c)(ii) of FOIP applied to portions of the record and recommended release of the rest.

Review Report 178-2016

October 28, 2016

FOIP 9(1), FOIP Regulations 6(2), 6(3)

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Ministry of Government Relations (the Ministry). The Ministry issued a fee estimate to the Applicant. The Applicant appealed the fee estimate to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC). The Commissioner found that had proper records management practices been in place, the fee estimate would not have been necessary, and recommended the Ministry consider charging no fee.

Review Report 203-2016

October 28, 2016

FOIP 14(a), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c)(iii)

The Ministry of the Economy applied subsections 14(a), 19(1)(b) and 19(1)(c)(iii) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) to an agreement between SkipTheDishes and the Government of Manitoba. The Commissioner found that the exemptions did not apply and recommended release of the record.

Review Report 219-2016

October 25, 2016

FOIP 2(1)(d)(i)

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Ministry of Social Services (MSS) for records related to his appeal board hearing. The Applicant was dissatisfied with MSS’ response when MSS stated that some of the records were destroyed. The Applicant appealed to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC). The IPC found that MSS conducted an adequate search for records.

Review Report 197-2016

October 20, 2016

FOIP 19(1)(b)

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI) for copies of all proposals submitted in response to a Request for Proposals (RFP) by SGI. SGI refused the Applicant access to the responsive records pursuant to subsections 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), and 19(1)(c) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The Applicant appealed to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC). The IPC found that subsection 19(1)(b) of FOIP applies to the records and recommended that SGI continue to withhold the records.

Review Report 202-2016

October 14, 2016

FOIP 17(1)(a), 17(1)(b), 18(1)(d)

The Applicant requested a review of the Ministry of the Economy’s application of subsections 17(1)(a), (b) and 18(1)(d) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) to three portions of a briefing note. The Commissioner found that subsection 17(1)(a) of FOIP applied to the first and third redactions. He found that no exemption applied to the second redaction and recommended its release.

Review Report 077-2016 and 092-2016

September 30, 2016

FOIP 5

The Global Transportation Hub Authority (GTH) responded to two access to information requests denying access to a land appraisal report pursuant to subsections 18(1)(d), 18(1)(h), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c)(i) and 19(1)(c)(ii) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). Through the course of the review my office identified a preliminary issue of whether the GTH actually has possession and control of the Appraisal. The Commissioner found the GTH was inappropriately provided a copy of the Appraisal. The Commissioner recommended the GTH destroy all copies of the Appraisal or return them to [the appraisal firm]. Further, the Commissioner recommended that provincial government institutions with a copy of the Appraisal without the written authorization also destroy those copies or return them to [the appraisal firm].

Review Report 104-2016

September 30, 2016

LA FOIP 4(a), 14(1)(d), 16(1)(b), 21(a)

The Applicant appealed to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) when he was not satisfied with the Saskatoon Regional Health Authority’s (SRHA) response to his access to information request. The IPC found that some records were non-responsive, and that subsections 21(a) and 16(1)(b) of LA FOIP applied to portions of some of the responsive records. The IPC found that subsection 14(1)(d) of LA FOIP does not apply to the records. The IPC recommended that SRHA sever the responsive records based on the IPC’s findings and release the remainder of the records to the Applicant. The IPC also recommended that SRHA release the additional records it found when it conducted a search for records.

Investigation Report 189-2016

September 27, 2016

FOIP 24(1), 29(1)

Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI) proactively reported a breach involving its Auto Fund Database (SAM). An employee of an Issuer, Hometown Insurance Brokers in Vonda, Saskatchewan, had been making unauthorized accesses of personal information in SAM since 1995. The Commissioner raised concerns about SGI’s response to this breach, the safeguards in place to protect the personal information in SAM and its monitoring and auditing programs. He made some recommendations to address his concerns including implementing data sharing agreements.

Review Report 201-2016

September 27, 2016

HIPA 2(t), 17(1), 36

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Regina Qu’Appelle Regional Health Authority (RQRHA) for a copy of his chart. RQRHA responded, advising that the records had been destroyed. The Applicant requested a review by the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC). The IPC found that RQRHA conducted a reasonable search for the records.

Investigation Report 176-2016

September 26, 2016

LA FOIP 23(1)(k), 28(2)(n), 33; LA FOIP Regulations 10(i)

An individual submitted an access to information request to the Town of Kindersley (the Town). The Town notified a Third Party of the access to information request and disclosed the individual’s name to the Third Party. The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) found that The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP) did not authorize the disclosure of the individual’s identity to the Third Party. The IPC recommended that the Town implement policies and/or procedures on how to notify third parties when processing access to information requests. The IPC also recommended notifying the individual of the privacy breach, apologize, and let her know the steps it will take to prevent a similar breach in the future.

Review Report 119-2016

September 26, 2016

LA FOIP 2(f)(i), 5, 9; LA FOIP Regulations 5(3), 5(4)

The Applicant submitted a freedom of information request to the Town of Kindersley (the Town). The Town responded by stating that no records exist for one part of her request, and issued a fee estimate for the second part of her request. The Applicant requested a review by the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC). The IPC found that it is reasonable to believe that no records exist to the one part of the Applicant’s request. However, the IPC found that the Town did not demonstrate that its fee estimate was reasonable.
I BACKGROUND

Review Report 147-2016

September 26, 2016

LA FOIP 2(f)(i), 7(2), 7(3)

The Applicant appealed to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) when she believed that the Town of Kindersley (the Town) did not completely respond to her freedom of information request. The IPC found that the Town’s response to the Applicant was not complete. Further, the IPC found that the Town’s response to the Applicant did not comply with requirements of section 7 of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP).

Review Report 148-2016

September 26, 2016

LA FOIP 2(f)(i), 7(2), 7(3)

The Applicant appealed to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) when she did not receive the external monitoring reports she requested from the Town of Kindersley (the Town). She believed these records existed according to the Town’s Governance Manual. The IPC reviewed the records that were provided to the Applicant and they appeared not to be the external monitoring reports. In the course of the review, the Town identified additional records that are responsive to the Applicant’s request but they were still not the external monitoring reports. The Town explained the types of records it does receive from its auditors, which does not include external monitoring reports. The IPC recommended that the Town release the additional records to the Applicant and amend its Governance Manual.

Review Report 149-2016

September 26, 2016

LA FOIP 2(f)(i), 7(2), 7(3)

The Applicant submitted a freedom of information request to the Town of Kindersley (the Town). After 30 days, she had not received a response from the Town. She appealed to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC). The IPC found that the Town did not meet the requirements of section 7 of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). The IPC also found that the Town did not demonstrate it conducted an adequate search for records.

Review Report 150-2016

September 26, 2016

LA FOIP 2(f)(i), 9

The Applicant submitted six separate freedom of information requests on the same day. The Town issued a fee estimate that appeared to be for all six requests. The Applicant requested the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) review the fee estimate. The Town clarified that that fee estimate was meant for only one of the requests, and not for all six. The IPC found that fees cannot be charged for creating records. The IPC recommended that the Town revise its procedures.

Review Report 151-2016

September 26, 2016

LA FOIP 4(a), 4(b), 7(2), 7(2)(d), 7(3), 7(5), 33(2)(b), 35(1)(b), 36(1), 36(4)

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Town of Kindersley (the Town). The Applicant appealed to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) when she did not receive a response within legislated timelines. The IPC found that the Town did not process the access to information request within legislated timelines. Further, the IPC found that subsection 117(1)(a) of The Municipalities Act entitles any person to inspect and obtain copies of the type of record the Applicant is seeking. The IPC recommended that the Town establish written policies and/or procedures so that it processes access to information requests within legislated timelines. The IPC also recommended that the Town make contracts approved by council available to citizens pursuant to subsection 117(1)(a) of The Municipalities Act.

Review Report 152-2016

September 26, 2016

LA FOIP 2(f)(i), 6(3), 44

The Applicant submitted a freedom of information request to the Town of Kindersley (the Town). The Town responded by stating that no records exist. The Applicant appealed to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC). The IPC found that the Town did not follow the best practice of assisting the Applicant.

Review Report 153-2016

September 26, 2016

LA FOIP 2(f)(i)

The Applicant submitted a freedom of information request to the Town of Kindersley (the Town). The Town responded by stating that no records exist. The Applicant appealed to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC). The IPC found that the Town did not follow the best practice of assisting the Applicant.

Review Report 154-2016

September 26, 2016

LA FOIP 2(f)(i), 4(a), 4(b)

The Applicant submitted a freedom of information request to the Town of Kindersley (the Town). The Town provided her with a one page record. The Applicant was dissatisfied so she appealed to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC). The IPC found that the Town did not respond to the Applicant’s request openly, accurately, and completely.

Review Report 155-2016

September 26, 2016

LA FOIP 2(f)(i)

The Applicant submitted six separate freedom of information requests on the same day. The Town issued a fee estimate that appeared to be for all six requests. The Applicant requested that the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) to review the fee estimate. The Town clarified that the fee estimate was meant for only one of the requests, and not for all six. The IPC recommended that the Town revise its procedures so that it processes each freedom of information request separately.

Review Report 156-2016

September 26, 2016

LA FOIP 2(f)(i)

The Applicant submitted a freedom of information request to the Town of Kindersley (the Town). The Applicant believed she did not receive all the responsive records. Therefore, she appealed to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC). The IPC found that the Town conducted an adequate search for records.

Review Report 158-2016

September 23, 2016

FOIP 17(1)(a), 18(1)(b), 18(1)(d), 18(1)(f), 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c)(i), 19(1)(c)(ii), 29(1)

The Global Transportation Hub Authority (GTH) identified 240 e-mails with attachments that were responsive to the Applicant’s access to information request. The GTH withheld the entire record pursuant to subsections 17(1)(a), 18(1)(b), (d), (f), 19(1)(a), (b), (c)(i), (c)(ii) and 29(1) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The Commissioner reviewed the record and recommended release of some of the e-mails and attachments.

Investigation Report 195-2016

September 22, 2016

HIPA 2(m)(i), 2(m)(ii), 2(m)(v), 2(t)(xiii)(A)

The Complainant alleged that an envelope containing her personal health information that was addressed to her at her husband’s office was opened by Dr. DeWitt’s receptionist. Dr. DeWitt and the Complainant’s husband share office space. The Commissioner found that Dr. DeWitt could have taken better steps to respond to the breach. He recommended some improvements to Dr. DeWitt’s procedures. He also recommended that the Complainant have her personal health information sent to her home address.

Review Report 192-2016

September 15, 2016

LA FOIP 3(1)(a), 14(1)(m)

The Rural Municipality of Baildon No. 131 (Baildon) applied subsection 14(1)(m) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP) to records. The Commissioner found that the records were publically available and LA FOIP did not apply. However, since Baildon applied exemptions and failed to refer the Applicant to where he could obtain the records, he continued his review of the record. He found that subsection 14(1)(m) of LA FOIP applied only to an account number and password found on the record and recommended that Baildon release the rest.

Investigation Report 183-2016, 186-2016 and 187-2016

September 14, 2016

HIPA 2(m), 2(t)

The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) learned that a photocopier containing personal health information had been sold at an auction. The IPC undertook an investigation and found that The Health Information Protection Act (HIPA) does not apply to this situation because there is no trustee as defined by subsection 2(t) of HIPA. The IPC recommended that the Government of Saskatchewan amend HIPA to expand the definition of HIPA.

Review Report 163-2016, 166-2016, 167-2016 and 168-2016

September 7, 2016

FOIP 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c)(ii)

The Ministry of Environment made a decision to release annual landfill reports to the Applicant. The Third Party requested a review by my office on the basis that subsection 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b) and 19(1)(c)(ii) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) applied to the record. The Commissioner found that these exemptions did not apply and recommended release of the entire record.

Review Report 115-2016

August 31, 2016

FOIP 9(1); FOIP Regulations 6(2), 6(3), 7(1)

The Applicant requested that the Commissioner review a fee estimate provided by the Ministry of Agriculture. The Commissioner found that the Ministry’s estimate for search time was not reasonable because the Ministry had completed the work before the Applicant had agreed to pay the fees. The Commissioner found the rest of the estimate to be reasonable.

Investigation Report 109-2016

August 30, 2016

HIPA 2(m)(i), 2(t)(xiii), 23(4), 27(4)(i)

The Saskatchewan Registered Nurses’ Association (SRNA) posted a Notice of Hearing on its website containing one of its member’s grandmother’s personal health information. Further, it shared the books of exhibits with the member’s legal counsel that contained the grandmother’s personal health information. The grandmother’s representative complained to the SRNA and to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC). The IPC found that subsection 27(4)(i) of The Health Information Protection Act (HIPA) and section 30 of The Registered Nurses’ Act, 1988 (RNA) authorizes the disclosure of the personal health information to the member but not to any person who accesses SRNA’s website. The IPC also found that SRNA did not abide by the data minimization principle as outlined in section 23 of HIPA, that HIPA does not authorize the disclosure of personal health information on the basis of the open court principle, and that SRNA had not sufficiently amended its policy regarding posting Notice of Hearings on its website. However, the IPC did find that subsection 27(4)(i) of HIPA authorizes the disclosure of personal health information, without consent, for the purpose of conducting a proceeding before a tribunal.

Investigation Report 170-2016

August 29, 2016

HIPA 2(m), 2(t), 16, 64(1)(f), 64(3.2)

A former nurse entered the Victoria Hospital with a locum physician and proceeded to provide care to patients. In the course of providing care, the former nurse accessed and made handwritten notes on two patients’ charts. This former nurse also had the potential to access other patients’ personal health information. The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) made a number of recommendations, including forwarding this file to the Ministry of Justice, Public Prosecutions Division.

Review Report 116-2016

August 29, 2016

FOIP 16(1)(a), 16(2)(b), 24(2)(e)

The Ministry applied subsection 16(1)(a) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) to records responsive to the Applicant’s request. The Commissioner found that the exemption did not apply because the records did not qualify as advice, proposals, recommendations, analyses or policy options. He also found that the entire record was responsive to the Applicant’s request and that the record did not qualify as personal information.

Investigation Report 030-2016

August 17, 2016

HIPA 2(t)(ii)

The Regina Qu’Appelle Regional Health Authority (RQRHA) proactively reported a privacy breach that involved an employee snooping into 97 electronic medical records of 35 individuals. The IPC found that RQRHA did not appropriately respond to the privacy breach and made a number of recommendations for RQRHA to consider in order to respond more appropriately to future privacy breaches.

Review Report 165-2016

August 17, 2016

FOIP 13(1)(a), 17(1)(a)

The Ministry of Finance (the Ministry) applied subsections 13(1)(a) and 17(1)(a) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) to records responsive to the Applicant’s request. The Commissioner found that subsection 17(1)(a) applied to a portion of the record, but encouraged the Ministry, if the Minister had made a public statement, to exercise its discretion to release it. The Commissioner found that subsection 13(1)(a) of FOIP applied to another portion of the record.

Review Report 121-2016

August 12, 2016

HIPA 35

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Heartland Regional Health Authority (HRHA) for a copy of his chart. He appealed to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) because he believed he did not receive all the records in his chart. In the course of the IPC’s review, additional records were provided to the Applicant. The IPC found that HRHA made a reasonable effort to conduct an adequate search for records. HRHA recognized it could have done better in responding to the Applicant’s request and undertook initiatives to improve its processes. The IPC recommended that HRHA follow through with its initiatives to improve its processes.

Review Report 009-2016

August 10, 2016

FOIP 17(1)(a), 17(1)(c), 18(1)(b)

In December 2015, the Applicant submitted a request to SaskBuilds for information relating to the Regina Bypass Project. SaskBuilds provided the Applicant with responsive records, severing portions of the record pursuant to subsections 17(1)(a), (b), (c), (g), 18(1)(b), (e) and 24(1)(k) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The IPC found that subsection 18(1)(d) of FOIP applied to some of the withheld portions. The IPC recommended SaskBuilds release portions of the record where exemptions were not found to apply. SaskBuilds agreed to comply with this recommendation.

Review Report 164-2016

August 4, 2016

LA FOIP 17(1)(g), 23(1)(b), 23(1)(k), 28(1), 30(2), 30(3)(a)(ii)

The Applicant made an access request for material related to his application to medical residency programs at the University of Saskatchewan. The University applied subsection 17(1)(g), 28(1), 30(2) and 30(3)(a)(ii) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP) to the record. The Commissioner found that subsections 17(1)(g), 28(1), and 30(3)(a)(ii) of LA FOIP only applied to some material and recommended release of the rest.

Review Report 171-2016

August 2, 2016

LA FOIP 7(1), 7(5)

Despite efforts by the Commissioner’s office, the Northern Village of Pinehouse (the Village) did not provide a response to the Applicant’s access to information request. The Village did not comply with subsection 7(1) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). The Commissioner determined this was a deemed refusal and recommended that the Village provide a section 7 response to the Applicant in accordance with LA FOIP.

Review Report 034-2016

July 28, 2016

FOIP 12(1)(a)(ii), 12(1)(b)

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Ministry of Government Relations (Government Relations) for a fire report. The Ministry applied a time extension to respond to the request pursuant to subsections 12(1)(a)(ii) and (b) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The Commissioner found that Government Relations properly applied an extension of time pursuant to subsections 12(1)(a)(ii) and (b) of FOIP. The Commissioner recommended that the change in process be made into a written policy to ensure all current and future employees are aware of the process.

Investigation Report 174-2016

July 28, 2016

LA FOIP 2(e)(i), 23(1)(k)(i)

The Complainant’s husband alleged that the City of Warman (the City) unnecessarily included the Complainant’s personal information in its response to a privacy complaint. The husband also alleged that the City unnecessarily copied the mayor and city councilors in its response. The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) found that the City was authorized to use the personal information by including it in its response. The IPC found that it was appropriate for the mayor to have been copied on the response but found that the City did not demonstrate that the city councilors had a need-to-know that personal information. The IPC recommended that the City amend its policy so that city councilors are only provided personal information when a decision needs to be made and an item is on a Council or committee agenda or where in the opinion of the mayor, all councilors need-to-know.

Review Report 214-2015 Part I

July 27, 2016

LA FOIP 16(3), 21(a), 21(b), 21(c), 28(1); HIPA 38(1)(d)(ii)

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to Regina Qu’Appelle Regional Health Authority (RQRHA) for records relating to the death of her deceased family member. RQRHA provided the Applicant with some responsive records and advised it was withholding other records under subsections 16(3) and subsections 21 (a), (b) and (c) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP), subsection 38(1)(d)(ii) of The Health Information Protection Act (HIPA), as well as the application of section 10 of The Evidence Act, section 58 of The Regional Health Services Act (RHSA) and The Critical Incident Regulations. The Applicant requested a review of the exemptions raised by RQRHA as well as search efforts. RQRHA provided my office with records located at their office, but refused to provide my office with some records held at their lawyer’s office claiming solicitor-client privilege. The Commissioner found that RQRHA did perform an adequate search for records, including those held at their lawyer’s office. The Commissioner also found that RQRHA had appropriately withheld some of the records. The Commissioner also found that the exemptions claimed only applied to portions of the records. At a later date, the Commissioner will release Part II of this Report dealing with the records at RQRHA’s lawyer’s office where RQRHA is claiming solicitor-client privilege.

Review Report 027-2016

July 21, 2016

FOIP 10(2)(b), 15(1)(c), 15(1)(d), 15(1)(k), 17(1)(a), 17(1)(b)(i), 17(1)(c), 17(1)(d), 22(a), 22(b), 22(c), 24(1)(b), 29(1)

The Ministry of Justice applied subsections 15(1)(c), (d), (k), 17(1)(a), (b)(i), (c), (d), 22(a), (b), (c) and 29(1) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) to records responsive to the Applicant’s request. The Commissioner found that subsections 15(1)(c), (d), (k), 17(c) and (d) of FOIP do not apply to the record.

Investigation Report 053-2016

July 20, 2016

HIPA 4(4)(b), 20(2)., 23(1), 24(1), 24(4)

The Complainant alleged that Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI) over collected his personal health information. The Commissioner found the collection provisions of The Health Information Protection Act (HIPA) did not apply to SGI but encouraged SGI to follow best practices. He found there was not an over collection of personal health information.

Review Report 054-2016

July 20, 2016

HIPA 4(4)(b), 4(6), 19, 40(1)(a), 40(1)(b)

The Applicant made requests for amendment of his personal health information in the custody of Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI). The Commissioner found that the right of amendment provision in Part V of The Health Information Protection Act (HIPA) did not apply in this case. However, he found that it would be best practice for SGI to follow the right of amendment provision to fulfil its duty to ensure personal health information is accurate and complete. The Commissioner also found that amendments were not warranted but recommended SGI make notations on the record.

Review Report 026-2016

July 19, 2016

LA FOIP 17(1)(d)

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to the City of Regina (the City). The City advised that a redacted version of the requested record was available on its website and that it would continue to withhold the redacted portions pursuant to subsection 17(1)(d) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). In an earlier review by this office, the Commissioner had found that the redacted portions of the record had been withheld appropriately. The Applicant felt that as an adequate amount of time had passed and a contract had been signed that the report should be released in full. It was found that the City was in continued negotiations and therefore subsection 17(1)(d) of LA FOIP had been applied appropriately. It was recommended that the City review the redacted information as different phases of the project are completed to determine if any redacted information can be unmasked on the redacted document available on its website.

Review Report 122-2016

July 15, 2016

HIPA 2(t)

The Applicant requested a copy of his chart from Dr. Mynhardt of Outlook Medical Clinic for the time period January 2010 to the present. The Applicant received records but believed that records were missing from his chart. Therefore, he requested a review by the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC). The IPC found that Dr. Mynhardt made a reasonable effort to search for records. Therefore, the IPC did not have any recommendations.

Investigation Report 120-2016

July 11, 2016

FOIP 24(1), 25, 26(1)(f), 26(2)

SaskPower collected an employee’s personal information by conducting a forensic investigation on the employee’s work computer. The now former employee alleged that SaskPower breached his privacy by collecting his personal information from his workstation. The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner found that while employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the workplace, section 25 authorized SaskPower to collect the former employee’s personal information.

Investigation Report 118-2016

June 30, 2016

LA FOIP 23(1)(e), 24, 25(1), 26

The husband of the Complainant (the wife) alleged that the City of Warman misused her telephone number to contact her husband. The Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) found that while the City had authority to collect the wife’s personal information from the wife, the City did not directly collect the husband’s personal information from the husband, as required by subsection 25(1) of LA FOIP. Had it collected the personal information from the husband, then it would have taken reasonably steps to also comply with section 26 of LA FOIP. In the course of this investigation, the City agreed to revise its form and practices so that it would be in compliance with subsections 25(1) and 26 of LA FOIP. The IPC recommends that the City follow through with revising its form and practices.

Review Report 014-2016

June 24, 2016

LA FOIP 23(1)(j), 28(1)

The Applicant requested records regarding payment of taxes for a building on her property. The Rural Municipality of Birch Hills No. 460 (the RM) denied access to the requested records stating that it contained personal information pursuant to subsection 23(1)(j) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). The Commissioner found that subsection 28(1) of LA FOIP applied to portions of the record. The Commissioner recommended that the RM release the portions of the record where subsection 28(1) of LA FOIP was found not to apply.

Investigation Report 228-2015

June 22, 2016

FOIP

The SaskPower Corporation (SaskPower) proactively reported a case of employee snooping to my office. SaskPower advised that an employee had inappropriately accessed personal information of 4,382 current and former SaskPower employees and copied two files from that data. The Commissioner recommended that SaskPower amend its Code of Conduct to specifically address employee snooping and incorporate it into employee training. The Commissioner also recommended SaskPower contact the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists to report the former employee, if he is a member. Finally, the Commissioner recommended that SaskPower forward its investigation file to the Ministry of Justice, Public Prosecutions Division.

Review Report 102-2016

June 17, 2016

LA FOIP 15(1)(b)(i)

The City of Prince Albert (City) received an access to information request from the Applicant for copies of a report and other information from an in camera meeting of the City. The City denied access to the records pursuant to subsections 15(1)(a), (b), 16(1)(a), (b), (c), 17(1)(d) and (e) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). Upon review, the Commissioner found that subsection 15(1)(b)(i) of LA FOIP applied and recommended that the City continue withholding the records.

Review Report 098-2016

June 13, 2016

LA FOIP 5, 7(2), 7(5), 9, 12(1)(c), 12(2), 33(1); LA FOIP Regs 5(2), 5(3), 5(4)

The Northern Village of Pinehouse provided the Applicant with records responsive to her request after she paid $270.75 in fees. The Applicant requested a review by the Commissioner because she was dissatisfied for three reasons: 1) the amount of fees, 2) the Village did not respond to part of her request and 3) the extension of time. The Commissioner requested that the Village provide a submission for the purpose of the review. It did not do so. The Commissioner found that $30.75 was a reasonable fee. He also recommended that the Village provide a section 7 response to the Applicant in accordance with The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP).

Investigation Report 060-2016

June 10, 2016

LA FOIP 18(1), 23

Cumberland College’s website was breached through a brute force attack. This may have resulted in the unauthorized disclosure of the personal information of 2800 individuals. The Commissioner found that Cumberland College has taken reasonable steps in responding to the breach. He recommends that Cumberland College perform privacy impact assessments when looking at new ways to collect personal information.

Review Report 110-2016

June 10, 2016

LA FOIP 7(2), 12(1), 12(2), 17(1)(f)

The Northern Village of Pinehouse applied subsection 17(1)(f) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP) to records responsive to the Applicant’s access to information request. The Commissioner asked the Village to provide a submission to his office for the purpose of this review. It did not do so. The Commissioner found that the Village did not properly apply subsection 17(1)(f) of LA FOIP to the record and recommended release. He also found that the Village did not reply within legislated timelines.

Review Report 016-2016

June 8, 2016

FOIP 7(2), 13(1)(b), 13(2), 16(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c)(iii), 29(1)

The Ministry of Health (Health) received a request for information regarding user-pay CT scans or MRIs in Saskatchewan. Responsive records included jurisdictional scans and analysis and briefing notes. Health applied subsections 13(1)(b), 13(2), 16(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c)(iii), 29(1) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) to the records. The Commissioner found that the majority of the exemptions did not apply and that Health did not respond to the Applicant within the legislated timelines.

Investigation Report 101-2016

June 8, 2016

HIPA 2(m)(ii), 2(m)(v), 33, 56(d)

The Commissioner received a complaint from an individual who was not satisfied with the outcome of the investigation conducted by Prince Albert Parkland Regional Health Authority (PAPRHA) into her concern that PAPRHA inappropriately disclosed her child’s personal health information and changed his next of kin without her consent. Upon investigation, the Commissioner was satisfied with the efforts taken by PAPRHA to prevent similar breaches from happening in the future.

Review Report 103-2016

June 6, 2016

HIPA 40

The Applicant made a request for an amendment of her personal health information to Sun Country Regional Health Authority (Sun Country). The Commissioner found that it was appropriate for Sun Country to make a notation instead of an amendment. He recommended that Sun Country improve the manner in which it make notations and update its policy and procedure.

Review Report 036-2016

June 3, 2016

LA FOIP 7(1), 7(5)

Despite efforts by the Commissioner’s office, the Northern Village of Pinehouse did not provide a response to the Applicant’s access to information request. The Village did not comply with subsection 7(1) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). The Commissioner determined this was a deemed refusal and recommended that the Village provide a section 7 response to the Applicant in accordance with LA FOIP.

Review Report 037-2016

June 3, 2016

LA FOIP 7(1), 7(5)

Despite efforts by the Commissioner’s office, the Northern Village of Pinehouse did not provide a response to the Applicant’s access to information request. The Village did not comply with subsection 7(1) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). The Commissioner determined this was a deemed refusal and recommended that the Village provide a section 7 response to the Applicant in accordance with LA FOIP.

Review Report 039-2016

June 3, 2016

LA FOIP 5, 7(2), 12(1), 12(2)

The Northern Village of Pinehouse provided a response to the Applicant’s access to information request indicating that responsive records did not exist. The Applicant requested a review by the Commissioner on the basis that records did not exist and the Village did not respond within the legislated timelines. The Commissioner requested that the Village provide a submission regarding these matters for the purpose of the review. It did not. The Commissioner found that the Village did not perform a reasonable search for records and did not respond within legislated timelines.

Review Report 040-2016

June 3, 2016

LA FOIP 7(1), 7(5)

Despite efforts by the Commissioner’s office, the Northern Village of Pinehouse did not provide a response to the Applicant’s access to information request. The Village did not comply with subsection 7(1) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). The Commissioner determined this was a deemed refusal and recommended that the Village provide a section 7 response to the Applicant in accordance with LA FOIP.

Review Report 056-2016

June 3, 2016

LA FOIP 7(2), 12(1), 12(2), 17(1)(f)

The Northern Village of Pinehouse applied subsection 17(1)(f) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP) to records responsive to the Applicant’s access to information request. The Commissioner asked the Village to provide a submission to his office for the purpose of this review. It did not do so. The Commissioner found that the Village did not properly apply subsection 17(1)(f) of LA FOIP to the record and recommended release. He also found that the Village did not reply within legislated timelines.

Review Report 106-2016

June 3, 2016

LA FOIP 7(1), 7(5)

Despite efforts by the Commissioner’s office, the Northern Village of Pinehouse did not provide a response to the Applicant’s access to information request. The Village did not comply with subsection 7(1) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). The Commissioner determined this was a deemed refusal and recommended that the Village provide a section 7 response to the Applicant in accordance with LA FOIP.

Investigation Report 007-2016

June 2, 2016

HIPA 2(m), 2(t), 16

Saskatoon Regional Health Authority (SRHA) proactively reported to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) that one of its employees had not followed the appropriate process and allowed an unauthorized research assistant to access personal health information. The Commissioner was satisfied with how SRHA addressed the breach. The Commissioner recommended SRHA report the employee for his conduct in this matter to his professional association.

Review Report 229-2015

June 2, 2016

FOIP 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c)

The Applicant requested unit prices and lump sum prices from a contract between Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI) and Veridos Canada Limited. SGI provided partial access to records but withheld portions pursuant to subsections 19(1)(a), (b) and (c) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). Upon review, the Commissioner found that subsections 19(1)(a), (b) and (c) of FOIP did not apply to the information withheld. The Commissioner recommended that SGI release the information to the Applicant.

Review Report 153-2015 Part 1

May 24, 2016

LA FOIP 4, 4(a), 4(c), 7(2), 8, 12(1), 14(1)(d), 16(1)(a), 16(1)(b), 23(1)(b), 23(1)(k)(ii), 28(1), 30(2), 39(2)

The University of Saskatchewan identified 48 e-mail records responsive to the Applicant’s request. It applied subsections 14(1)(d), 16(1)(a), 16(1)(b), 28(1), and 30(2) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP) to the record. The Commissioner found that these exemptions applied to only portions of the record. He also found that the request for review was made in good faith and that the U of S did not respond within legislative timelines. At a later date, the Commissioner will release Part II to this Report dealing with solicitor-client privilege.

Review Report 023-2016

May 20, 2016

FOIP 2(d)(ii), 5, 7(4), 23, 23(3)

The Applicant made an access request for two types of information about himself to the Saskatchewan Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB). The Commissioner found that FOIP did not apply to one of the types of responsive records. He did not find that WCB performed a reasonable search for records. He also disagreed with WCB’s assertions that FOIP did not apply to records found in its Fair Practices Office. Finally, he found that WCB could not apply subsection 7(4) of FOIP and refuse to confirm or deny that records exist at this time.

Review Report 225-2015

May 16, 2016

HIPA 43(2)(a), 43(2)(b)

The Applicant requested access to his care plan from the Saskatoon Regional Health Authority (SRHA). SRHA denied access citing subsection 38(1)(a) of The Health Information Protection Act (HIPA). The Applicant requested a review by the Commissioner. SRHA requested the Commissioner discontinue the review as the request was made on grounds that were frivolous, vexatious and not in good faith pursuant to subsections 43(2)(a) and (b) of HIPA. The Commissioner found that the circumstances of the case met the threshold to support a finding that the request was vexatious. The review was discontinued pursuant to subsection 43(2)(a) of HIPA. The Commissioner recommended that if the Applicant ceased his abusive and obnoxious behavior SRHA reconsider the matter.

Review Report 018-2016

May 5, 2016

FOIP 17(1)(b)(i), 18(1)(f), 24(1), 29(1)

The Applicant made an access to information request to Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI) for information related to her injury file. SGI withheld portions pursuant to subsections 17(1)(b)(i), 18(1)(f) and 29(1) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The Commissioner found that subsections 18(1)(f) and 29(1) of FOIP applied to the record; however subsection 17(1)(b)(i) did not. He also found that SGI performed a reasonable search for records.

Investigation Report 011-2016 and 025-2016

May 3, 2016

FOIP 24(1), 26, 29(1)

The Complainant alleged that she paid a Saskatchewan Power Corporation (SaskPower) bill and signed up for pre-authorized payments at a Saskatchewan Telecommunications (SaskTel) Store. She also alleged that the personal information used to set up the payments were disclosed to a Third Party and the Third Party was able to erroneously debit money from her account. The Commissioner could not determine with certainty that either SaskTel or SaskPower disclosed the personal information to the Third Party. However, he recommended that the two government institutions review their processes and strengthen safeguards.

Review Report 223-2015 and 224-2015

April 13, 2016

LA FOIP 2(f)(i), 7(4), 14(1)(d)

The requested records from the City of Regina (City). The City provided a portion of one record to the Applicant citing subsection 14(1)(d) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP) to the information withheld. Further, the City refused to confirm or deny the existence of other records pursuant to subsection 7(4) of LA FOIP. Upon review, the Commissioner found that the City could rely on subsection 7(4) of LA FOIP. In addition, the Commissioner found that the City appropriately applied subsection 14(1)(d) of LA FOIP to the portions of the record identified and withheld from the Applicant. The Commissioner recommended the City continue to withhold the records, if they existed, along with the portions of the record identified and withheld. Further, the Commissioner recommended that the City reconsider its application of subsection 7(4) of LA FOIP at the conclusion of the trial and contact the Applicant to inquire if he is interested in access to the records if records exist. If so, the City should process a new access to information request and issue a response to the Applicant under section 7 of LA FOIP. Finally, the Commissioner recommended that the Legislative Assembly amend subsection 7(4) of LA FOIP and The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) to narrow the scope of these provisions to bring them in line with other provinces.

Review Report 022-2016

April 6, 2016

FOIP 18(1)(b), 18(1)(f)

In response to an access to information request regarding ridership numbers, Saskatchewan Transportation Company applied subsection 18(1)(b) and 18(1)(f) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) to the record. The Commissioner found that subsection 18(1)(f) of FOIP applied to the record.

Review Report 017-2016

April 6, 2016

FOIP 7(2), 12(1)(a)(i)

The Commissioner found that the Ministry of Health (Health) did not respond to an access to information request within the legislated timelines. He made some recommendations including limiting the number of Ministry officials required to sign off on its responses.

Review Report 010-2016

April 6, 2016

FOIP 17(1)(b)(i), 18(1)(f), 22(b), 29(1)

The Applicant requested that the Commissioner review the response of Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI) to his access to information request pertaining to information about his injury file. The Commissioner found that SGI appropriately applied subsections 22(b), 18(1)(f), 17(1)(b)(i) and 29(1) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). He also found that SGI performed a reasonable search for records.

Review Report 231-2015

April 6, 2016

18(1)(f), 19(1)(b), 20

The Applicant requested certain potash royalty records dating back to the 1960s. The Ministry applied subsections 18(1)(f), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c) and 20 of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) to the records. The Commissioner found that subsections 18(1)(f), 19(1)(b) and 20(a) of FOIP applied to the record.

Review Report 020-2016

April 6, 2016

LA FOIP 18(1)(a), 18(1)(b), 18(1)(c), 18(1)(d)

The Applicant made an access to information request to the City of Lloydminster for a proposal submitted to the City by a Third Party. The Commissioner found that subsection 18(1)(b) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP) applies to the majority of the record. He did not find that subsections 18(1)(a), (c) and (d) applied to the remainder and recommended release of those portions.

Investigation Report 220-2015

April 5, 2016

LA FOIP 23(1)(b), 27(b), 28(1), LA FOIP Regulations 10(e), 10(g), 11

The Commissioner received a complaint from an individual who was not satisfied with the outcome of the investigation conducted by Saskatoon Regional Health Authority (SRHA) into his concern that SRHA inappropriately disclosed his personal information (employment history) when providing an employment reference. Upon investigation, the Commissioner found that SRHA had authority to use and/or disclose the personal information for the purpose of responding to reference checks pursuant to subsections 27(b) and 28(2)(s) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP) and subsections 10(e) and (g) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Regulations (LA FOIP Regulations).

Investigation Report 204-2015 and 015-2016

April 5, 2016

HIPA 2(m)(i), 2(m)(ii), 2(m)(iii), 2(m)(iv), 2(m)(v)

Prince Albert Parkland Regional Health Authority (PAPRHA) proactively reported to the Office of the Information Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) that one of its employees had inappropriately accessed the personal health information in the Picture Archiving Communications System (PACS). A number of preventative measures were taken by PAPRHA. The Commissioner was satisfied with how PAPRHA addressed the privacy breach. In addition, one of the affected individuals in the privacy breach complained to the OIPC that the same employee breached his daughter’s privacy by testing urine samples in the laboratory at PAPRHA. However, upon investigation, the Commissioner found that The Health Information Protection Act (HIPA) was not engaged so the matter could not be addressed under HIPA.

Review Report 202-2015

April 5, 2016

FOIP 29(1), 24(1)

The Applicant requested names and addresses of plan members from SaskPower. SaskPower responded claiming the record contained personal information and therefore withheld the information pursuant to subsection 29(1) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The Commissioner found that the information contained personal information and that subsection 29(1) of FOIP applied to the record. The Commissioner recommended that SaskPower take no further action regarding this matter.

Investigation Report 219-2015

April 5, 2016

FOIP 24(1)(a), 24(1)(k), 29(1), 29(2)

The Commissioner received a complaint from an individual who was not satisfied with the outcome of the investigation conducted by the Ministry of Social Services (MSS) into her concern that MSS inappropriately disclosed her personal information to individuals at a meeting. Upon investigation, the Commissioner confirmed that a privacy breach had occurred. Further, the Commissioner was satisfied with the efforts taken by MSS to prevent similar breaches from happening in the future.

Review Report 155-2015

February 10, 2016

FOIP 17(1)(a)

The Applicant submitted an access request to the Saskatchewan Arts Board (SAB) for work completed by a Third Party. The SAB responded to the request providing access to portions of the Composite Business Plan 2015-2016. The remaining portions of this report was denied pursuant to subsection 17(1)(a) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). It was found that subsection 17(1)(a) of FOIP was applied appropriately to portions of the report. It was recommended that the SAB release those portions where subsection 17(1)(a) of FOIP was found not to apply.

Review Report 154-2015

February 10, 2016

FOIP 17(1)(a), 19(1)(b)

The Applicant submitted an access request to the Saskatchewan Arts Board (SAB) for work completed by a Third Party. The SAB responded to the request providing access to some responsive records and denying access to a Communications Report pursuant to subsection 19(1)(b) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The SAB then advised during the review that it would also be applying subsection 17(1)(a) of FOIP to deny access. The Commissioner found that the SAB applied subsection 17(1)(a) of FOIP appropriately to portions of the withheld record. The Commissioner recommended that the SAB release those portions of the record where subsection 17(1)(a) of FOIP was found not to apply.

Investigation Report 215-2015

February 9, 2016

FOIP 24(1)(a), 24(1)(e), 24(1)(j), 24(1)(k)(i), 29(2)

The Commissioner received a complaint from an individual who was not satisfied with the outcome of the investigation conducted by the Ministry of Social Services (MSS) into his concern that MSS inappropriately disclosed his personal information to his roommate. Upon investigation, the Commissioner confirmed that a privacy breach had occurred. Further, the Commissioner was satisfied with the efforts taken by MSS to prevent similar breaches from happening in the future.

Investigation Report 189-2015

February 3, 2016

FOIP 24(1)(a), 24(1)(b), 24(1)(e), 24(1)(j), 24(1)(k)(i), 28

The Commissioner received a complaint from an individual who was not satisfied with the investigation conducted by Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI) into her concern that an SGI employee had inappropriately accessed her personal information in the Auto Fund database. Upon investigation, the Commissioner was unable to determine whether a privacy breach had occurred. The Commissioner recommended that SGI find a solution that would enable it to determine with more certainty whether an employee’s access was for legitimate business purposes and provide its conclusions within six months.

Investigation Report 176-2015

January 29, 2016

HIPA 2(m)(i), 2(m)(ii), 2(m)(iv), 2(m)(v), 16, 23(1), 23(2)

Saskatoon Regional Health Authority (SRHA) proactively reported a privacy breach to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC). Following its investigation, SRHA determined that there were broader issues that needed to be addressed by the region including the practice of technologists working in the Department of Medical Imaging sharing user access to the Radiology Information System (RIS) and the Picture Archiving and Communications System (PACS). As a result of these broader issues, the Commissioner found that SRHA was not in compliance with section 16 or subsections 23(1) or (2) of The Health Information Act (HIPA). Further, that SRHA’s safeguards were not sufficient to protect personal health information. The Commissioner recommended that SRHA strive for an urgent solution to the issue of technologists sharing user access. In addition, he recommended that SRHA implement a manual audit schedule for PACS, finalize its broader audit policy and procedure for all electronic health record systems and ensure that all User Agreements for RIS/PACS are signed by employees and physicians. Finally, the Commissioner recommended that the remaining 12 health regions in the province investigate to see if the issues highlighted in the report impact their region and advise his office.

Review Report 195-2015 and 196-2015

January 28, 2016

FOIP 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c), 29(1)

The Applicant requested access to contracts involving two third parties and the Ministry of Central Services (Central Services). Central Services provided partial access to a number of contracts but withheld portions pursuant to subsections 19(1)(b), (c) and 29(1) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). Upon review, the Commissioner found that Central Services did not appropriately apply subsections 19(1)(b) and (c) of FOIP to the hourly rates in the contracts. Further, the Commissioner found that subsection 29(1) of FOIP did not apply to the names of third party consultants. The Commissioner recommended release of the information.

Review Report 186-2015

January 13, 2016

FOIP 17(1)(b)(i), 18(1)(f), 22(a), 29(1); HIPA 4(4)(b)

The Applicant requested records from Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI) regarding his claim file. SGI provided partial access to responsive records but withheld portions pursuant to subsections 15(1)(d), 17(1)(b)(i), 18(1)(f), 22(a) and 29(1) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). Upon review, the Commissioner found that SGI appropriately applied subsections 17(1)(b)(i), 18(1)(f) and 22(a) of FOIP to the record. The Commissioner recommended SGI continue to withhold the information in the record.
I BACKGROUND

Review Report 197-2015

January 11, 2016

FOIP 15(1)(c), 15(1)(f), 15(1)(g), 17(1)(b)(i), 22(a), 22(b), 22(c), 29(1)

The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission (SHRC) received an access to information request from one of its Complainant’s for her entire file. SHRC released 827 pages to her but withheld 510 pages pursuant to subsections 15(1)(c), (f), (g), 17(1)(b)(i), 22(a), (b), (c), 29(1) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The Commissioner found that subsections 15(1)(c), (f), (g), 17(1)(b)(i), 22(b), (c), 29(1) applied only to portions of the record and recommended release of the rest.

2015

Review Report 217-2015

December 18, 2015

FOIP 19(1)(c)(i), 19(1)(c)(ii)

A Third Party requested a review of a decision of the Ministry of Environment to release records pursuant to subsection 19(3) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The Commissioner found that subsections 19(1)(c)(i) and (ii) of FOIP do not apply and recommended that the Ministry release the record to the Applicant.

Review Report 148-2015

December 14, 2015

LA FOIP 15(1)(b)(i)

The Resort Village of Candle Lake (RVCL) received an access request from the Applicant. RVCL denied access to the record pursuant to subsection 15(1)(b)(i) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). It was found that subsection 15(1)(b)(i) of LA FOIP applied to the record. It was recommended that RVCL continue to withhold the record.

Review Report 128-2015

December 14, 2015

LA FOIP 15(1)(b)(i)

The Resort Village of Candle Lake (RVCL) received an access to information request from the Applicant. RVCL applied subsection 15(1)(b)(i) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP) to deny access to the record. The Commissioner found that subsection 15(1)(b)(i) of LA FOIP did not apply to the record. The Commissioner recommended that RVCL release the record to the Applicant.

Investigation Report 205-2015

December 14, 2015

HIPA 16

Dr. Margaret Bartsch contacted the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to proactively report a privacy breach that occurred when personal health information was stolen from her personal residence. The Commissioner found that she did not meet the duty to protect personal health information as outlined in section 16 of The Health Information Protection Act (HIPA) and recommended that she put stronger safeguards in place.

Investigation Report 142-2015

December 14, 2015

HIPA 2(m), 2(t)(ii), 2(u), 26

The Heartland Regional Health Authority (HRHA) proactively reported a case of employee snooping to my office. HRHA advised that an employee had inappropriately accessed personal health information of 901 individuals. The Commissioner found that HRHA had appropriately investigated and responded to the privacy breach. The Commissioner recommended that HRHA forward its investigation file to the Ministry of Justice, Public Prosecutions Division.

Review 179-2015

November 24, 2015

FOIP 13(2), 19(1)(b), 29(1)

The Applicant made an access to information request for two audit reports to the Ministry of Health. The Ministry denied access to the records pursuant to subsections 13(2), 19(1)(b) and 29(1) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The Commissioner found that subsection 13(2) and 19(1)(b) did not apply and subsection 29(1) applied to portions of the record.

Review Report 180-2015

November 23, 2015

LA FOIP 18(1)(a), 18(1)(b), 18(1)(c), 28(1)

The Applicant made an access to information request to Mamawetan Churchill River Regional Health Authority (MCRRHA) for two audit reports. MCRRHA denied access pursuant to subsections 18(1)(b) and 28(1) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). A Third Party also asserted that subsection 18(1)(a) and (c) of LA FOIP also applied. The Commissioner found that subsections 18(1)(a), (b) and (c) of LA FOIP did not apply, but subsection 28(1) applied to portions of the record.

Review Report 200-2015

November 23, 2015

FOIP 19(1)(c), 19(3)

The Applicant made an access request for information about fuel storage tanks on a certain property. The Ministry of Environment intended to release the information. A Third Party requested a review of the Ministry’s decision. The Commissioner found that the record did not qualify as third party information pursuant to 19(1)(c) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) and recommended release of the record.

Review Report 187-2015

November 23, 2015

FOIP 17(1)(b)(i), 17(1)(b)(ii), 18(1)(f), 22(a), 24(1), 29(1)

The Applicant requested records from Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI) regarding his insurance claim files. SGI provided partial access to responsive records but withheld portions pursuant to subsections 15(1)(d), 17(1)(b)(i), (iii), 18(1)(f), 22(a) and 29(1) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). In addition, SGI deemed some information in the record as not responsive to the Applicant’s access request. Upon review, the Commissioner found that the information in the record was responsive. Further, that SGI appropriately applied subsections 17(1)(b)(i), (iii), 18(1)(f), 22(a) and 29(1) of FOIP to the record. The Commissioner recommended SGI release some of the portions of the record found to be responsive and withhold the remainder of the record.

Review Report 152-2015

November 19, 2015

FOIP 9(2); FOIP Reg 6(2), 6(3)

The Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure (Highways) received an access to information request for vehicle repair contracts. Highways issued a fee estimate to the Applicant in the amount of $2,733.11. The Commissioner found that the fee estimate was reasonable.

Review Report 139-2015

November 16, 2015

FOIP 16(1)(a)

The Ministry of Education (Education) received an access request for records supporting a dollar figure reported in a news article. Education denied access to the record pursuant to subsection 16(1)(a) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). Education then indicated in the submission that the record identified did not fully support the dollar figure and therefore would only be partially responsive. The Commissioner found that the record identified by Education was not responsive to the request and records responsive to the request do not exist.

Review Report 185-2015

November 13, 2015

FOIP 5

The Applicant requested records from Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI). SGI responded to the Applicant providing access to some responsive records and indicated that no further responsive records existed. Upon review, the Commissioner found that SGI had conducted a reasonable search for any further responsive records.

Review Report 141-2015

November 12, 2015

LA FOIP 5, 21

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Northern Village of Pinehouse (Village). The Village provided records responsive to the request and advised that other records requested did not exist. Upon review, the Commissioner found that the Village had conducted a reasonable search for records. The Commissioner recommended that the Village determine which records should be in its possession and/or control for future access to information requests.

Investigation Report 173-2015

November 12, 2015

HIPA 18

Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI) proactively reported to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) that it had received a complaint alleging that an employee of an insurance broker agency in the province had inappropriately accessed the personal information of two individuals on the SGI Auto Fund database. Following its investigation, SGI determined that a privacy breach had occurred and provided a copy of its investigation report to the OIPC. The Commissioner was satisfied with the steps taken by SGI to address the privacy breach and recommended that SGI provide the OIPC with a quarterly update on its progress implementing the preventative measures. SGI agreed to this recommendation.

Review Report 194-2015

November 10, 2015

FOIP 22(a), 22(b)

The Applicant made an access to information request to the Ministry of the Economy for certain records. The Ministry withheld the responsive record in its entirety pursuant to subsections 22(a) and (b) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The Commissioner found that subsection 22(b) of FOIP applied to the record.

Review Report 149-2015

November 5, 2015

LA FOIP 12(1)(a)(i), 12(1)(c); LA FOIP Regs 5(2)(a), 5(3)

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Resort Village of Candle Lake (Candle Lake) for records related to a Council meeting motion. Candle Lake responded to the request indicating that they were applying a time extension for responding to the request. Candle Lake then sent a fee estimate to the Applicant. The Commissioner found that Candle Lake’s fee estimate was reasonable. The Commissioner recommended that Candle Lake revise its procedure for processing access requests involving fees.

Review Report 091-2015

October 26, 2015

LA FOIP 7(2)(e); LA FOIP Reg 5(3)

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Resort Village of Candle Lake (Candle Lake) for records related to special meetings. Candle Lake provided records responsive to the request and advised that other requested records did not exist. Candle Lake also issued fees to the Applicant related to the request. The Commissioner found that Candle Lake had performed a reasonable search and that the fees charged to the Applicant required an amendment. The Commissioner recommended that Candle Lake take no further action regarding search for responsive records. The Commissioner also recommended that Candle Lake create a procedure for access requests involving fees and to amend its fees for photocopying the record.

Review Report 169-2015

October 16, 2015

FOIP 16(1)(a)

The Applicant requested memos or briefing notes describing budget reduction measures and/or budget efficiency measures from the Ministry of Finance. The Ministry applied subsection 16(1)(a) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the responsive records. The Commissioner found that the exemption applied.

Review Report 110-2015

October 14, 2015

FOIP 10(3), 15(1)(c), 15(1)(f), 15(1)(k), 29(1); HIPA 27(1)

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Ministry of Justice, Corrections and Policing for records related to an investigation. The Saskatchewan Police Commission (SPC) provided portions of the responsive records and refused access to the remainder of the records pursuant to subsections 15(1)(c), (f), (k), 16(1)(a), 17(1)(a) and 29(1) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) and subsection 27(1) of The Health Information Protection Act (HIPA). The Commissioner found that SPC had appropriately applied subsection 15(1)(c) and (k) of FOIP to withhold portions of responsive records. The Commissioner recommended that SPC continue to withhold portions of the record where 15(1)(c) and 15(1)(k) of FOIP applied and release the remainder of the records. The Commissioner also recommended that SPC release the portions of the records that contain information that was provided by the Applicant.

Investigation Report 114-2015

October 13, 2015

HIPA 2(m)(i), 2(m)(ii), 2(m)(iv), 2(t)(ii), 2(u), 9(1), 9(2), 26(2)(a), 27(2)(b)

The Complainant alleged that her privacy was breached by Sun Country Regional Health Authority (SCRHA) when a registered nurse shared her personal health information with a Home Care Nurse. The Complainant raised her privacy concerns with SCRHA. SCRHA responded to her by stating that she had given verbal consent to the sharing of personal health information. She was not satisfied with the response so she submitted a complaint to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC). The IPC found that The Health Information Protection Act (HIPA) authorized the sharing of the personal health information without consent. However, the IPC recommended to SCRHA that it amend its policies, procedures, brochures, and pamphlets so that it is clear when SCRHA requires consent for the sharing of personal health information and when HIPA authorizes the sharing without consent.

Review Report 183-2015

October 9, 2015

LA FOIP 2(f)(i), 5

The requested records from the Rural Municipality of Shellbrook #493 (RM). The RM responded to the Applicant indicating that no responsive records existed. In addition, the RM advised that it did not have possession and/or control of records contained on the email accounts of RM Councillors. Upon review, the Commissioner determined that records created or maintained by a Councillor when performing work related to the RM’s mandate and/or function are subject to The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). The Commissioner found that the RM conducted a reasonable search for responsive records.

Review Report 145-2015

October 9, 2015

FOIP 4(c), 15(1)(c), 15(1)(d), 15(1)(e), 20(a), 20(b), 24(1), 29(1)

The Applicant made a request for an investigation report about himself and e-mails about performance reviews. Saskatchewan Power Corporation applied subsections 15(1)(c), (d), (e), 20(a) and (b) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) to the Investigation Report and 29(1) of FOIP to portions of the e-mails. The Commissioner found that subsection 20(a) of FOIP applied to portions of the Investigation Report and 29(1) of FOIP applied to one part of the e-mails. He recommended release of the rest of the record.

Investigation Report 133-2015

October 8, 2015

FOIP 24(1)(b), 24(1)(k)(i), 29(2)(i)(i); HIPA 2(m), 4(4)(h)

The Commissioner received a complaint that Saskatchewan Power Corporation (SaskPower) inappropriately disclosed personal information and personal health information to Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB). The Commissioner considered which portions of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) and The Health Information Protection Act (HIPA) applied in these circumstances. He found that only FOIP applied in this circumstance. Further, he found that SaskPower had the authority to disclose the Complainant’s personal information pursuant to subsection 29(2)(i)(i) of FOIP. The Commissioner recommended SaskPower develop a policy specific to disclosures of this and similar types of situations. SaskPower agreed to comply with this recommendation.

Review Report 134-2015

October 2, 2015

LA FOIP 5, 7(2)(e), 17(1)(d)

In December 2014, an Applicant submitted an access to information request to the City of Saskatoon (City) for records related to the City and a Labour Arbitrator/Mediator. The City responded indicating that access was denied as no records existed pursuant to subsection 7(2)(e) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). Additional records were obtained by the City after the access to information request and the City notified the Applicant that these records were being withheld in full pursuant to subsection 17(1)(d) of LA FOIP. The Applicant requested a review by the Commissioner. During the review, the City identified additional records responsive to the access to information request. The Commissioner found that the City had not conducted a reasonable search for responsive records and recommended the City conduct a new search and provide details and any responsive records to the Applicant. The Commissioner also found that the City appropriately applied subsection 17(1)(d) of LA FOIP to the located records and recommended they continue to be withheld.

Review Report 138-2015

September 30, 2015

FOIP 7(2)(a), 10(3)(c), 24(1)(a), 24(1)(b), 24(1)(d), 29(1)

The Applicant made an access to information request to the Ministry of Justice (Justice) for copies of video surveillance recordings from the entrances of the Court of Queen’s Bench in Saskatoon for a particular date. Justice responded advising that it would allow the Applicant to attend to its office to view portions of the video recordings pursuant to subsection 10(3)(c) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The Applicant requested a review by the Commissioner. Upon review, the Commissioner found that Justice was not obligated under FOIP to provide the Applicant with a copy of the video recordings pursuant to subsection 10(3)(c) of FOIP. Further, the Commissioner found that some of the information on the video recordings constituted personal information pursuant to subsections 24(1)(a),(b) and (d) of FOIP and recommended this information continue to be withheld pursuant to subsection 29(1) of FOIP.

Investigation Report 131-2015

September 30, 2015

FOIP 2(1)(d)(ii); HIPA 18

Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI) proactively reported to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) that a number of individual’s privacy may have been breached by Lestock Agencies. SGI investigated and determined that a number of breaches had occurred when Lestock Agencies accessed the Auto Fund database without a legitimate business purpose. A number of preventative measures were proposed by SGI. The Commissioner was satisfied with a number of steps taken by SGI but determined that he could not be fully satisfied until the prevention plans proposed by SGI were fully implemented. The Commissioner recommended that SGI provide the OIPC with a quarterly update on its progress implementing the preventative measures. SGI agreed to this recommendation.

Review Report 146-2015 and 147-2015

September 29, 2015

FOIP 9(4), 12(1)(c), FOIP Regs 6(2), 6(3), 7(1)

A journalist made two access to information requests to the Ministry of Environment. He was charged $600 and received 47 pages of responsive records. The Commissioner reviewed the fees charged, time extension, and search for records. He found that the majority of the fees and time extension were unreasonable. He also found the Ministry performed an adequate search.

Review Report 090-2015

September 28, 2015

LA FOIP 6(3), 6(4), 7(2)(e); LA FOIP Regulations 7(1)

The Applicant requested records from the Resort Village of Candle Lake (Candle Lake). Candle Lake responded indicating that access to records was refused pursuant to subsection 7(2)(e) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP) as records responsive to the request did not exist. Candle Lake also provided the Applicant with an invoice for fees related to the request. The Commissioner found that Candle Lake performed an adequate search for responsive records but that it did not have authority under LA FOIP to request fees related to this request. The Commissioner recommended that Candle Lake take no further action regarding search for records and it is recommended that no fees be collected in relation to this request for information.

Review Report 164-2015

September 25, 2015

FOIP 5, 7(2)(e)

The Applicant submitted a request to the Ministry of Labour Relations and Workplace Safety (LRWS). LRWS responded to the Applicant by stating that no records exist pursuant to subsection 7(2)(e) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The Applicant appealed to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC). The IPC found that LRWS made reasonable efforts to search for records. Therefore, he made no recommendations as he was satisfied with the efforts made by LRWS.

Review Report 162-2015

September 25, 2015

FOIP 2(1)(d)(i), 7(2), 12(1), 12(1)(a)(i), 12(2), 12(3)

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI). He submitted a request for review to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) when he did not receive a response from SGI. The IPC found that SGI had complied with subsections 12(1)(a)(i) and 12(2) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) but that SGI did not respond to the Applicant’s request pursuant to subsection 12(3) of FOIP. The IPC recommend that SGI make every effort to respond to the Applicant’s request as soon as possible. He also recommend that if SGI continues to receive a high number of requests, that SGI make the necessary changes to its processes and to its resources so that it can respond to access to information requests within the legislated timelines.

Review Report 163-2015

September 25, 2015

FOIP 5, 7(2)(e)

The Applicant submitted a request to the Ministry of Labour Relations and Workplace Safety (LRWS). LRWS responded to the Applicant by stating that no records exist pursuant to subsection 7(2)(e) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The Applicant appealed to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC). The IPC found that LRWS made reasonable efforts to search for records. Therefore, he made no recommendations as he was satisfied with the efforts made by LRWS.

Review Report 135-2015 and 136-2015

September 22, 2015

FOIP 9, FOIP Regulations 6(1),6(2), 6(3)

The Applicant submitted two access to information requests to Executive Council. Executive Council issued two fee estimates to the Applicant. The Applicant appealed the two fee estimates to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC). The IPC recommended that Executive Council make minor amendments to the fee estimates.

Review Report 129-2015

September 22, 2015

FOIP 17(1)(b)(i), 18(1)(f), 22(a), 29(1)

The Applicant requested records from Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI) involving herself, SGI and her union. SGI provided partial access to responsive records but withheld portions pursuant to subsections 15(1)(d), 17(1)(b)(i), (c), (d), 18(1)(f), 22(a), (c) and 29(1) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). Upon review, the Commissioner found that SGI appropriately applied subsections 22(a), 17(1)(b)(i), 18(1)(f) and 29(1) of FOIP and recommended the portions continue to be withheld.

Review Report 053-2015

September 18, 2015

FOIP 17(1)(b)(i), 50(2)(a)

The Applicant requested access an internal privacy breach investigation report from the Ministry of Justice (Justice). Justice provided partial access to the report citing subsection 17(1)(b)(i) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The Applicant requested a review by the Commissioner. Justice requested the Commissioner dismiss the review as frivolous and vexatious pursuant to subsection 50(2)(a) of FOIP. The Commissioner found that the circumstances of the case did not meet the threshold to support a finding that the request was frivolous or vexatious. The review continued and the Commissioner found that subsection 17(1)(b)(i) of FOIP applied to the withheld portions of the record. The Commissioner recommended these portions continue to be withheld.

Investigation Report 161-2015

September 16, 2015

HIPA 2(j), 2(m), 2(q), 2(t)(xii)(A), 6, 16, 17(1), 18, 24

The Commissioner received a complaint about Dr. Donbrook’s collection and retention practices with respect to the personal health information of clients of massage therapists that rent space in his clinic. The Commissioner found that Dr. Donbrook did not have adequate safeguards such as information sharing agreements and record retention and destruction schedules pursuant to section 16 of The Health Information Protection Act (HIPA). He also recommended that Dr. Donbrook ensure he has received express informed consent from the clients of the massage therapists before collecting personal health information.

Review Report 159-2015

September 9, 2015

FOIP 18(1)(b), 18(1)(f)

Saskatchewan Transportation Company applied subsections 18(1)(b) and 18(1)(f) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) to records responsive to a request for “ridership numbers for each specific [bus] route”. The Commissioner found that subsection 18(1)(f) of FOIP applied.

Review Report 122-2015

September 9, 2015

FOIP 17(1)(a), 19(1)(b)

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Ministry of Health (Health). Health provided some information but withheld portions of the record, citing subsections 17(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The Applicant appealed to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC). The IPC found that neither subsections applied so he recommended the release of the information.

Review Report 156-2015

September 8, 2015

LA FOIP 23, 23(1)(f), 28(2)(a)

The Applicant requested a copy of a petition from the Rural Municipality of Keys No. 33 (the R.M.). The R.M. provided a copy of the record to the Applicant, however, severed personal information. The Commissioner considered the petition to be a public document and recommended the personal information be released pursuant to subsection 28(2)(a) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Review Report 116-2015

September 4, 2015

LA FOIP 7(2)(e)

The Applicant requested records from the Rural Municipality of McKillop (RM). The RM responded to the Applicant denying access because no responsive records existed. Upon review, the Commissioner found that the RM had conducted a reasonable search for responsive records.

Review Report 109-2015

September 4, 2015

LA FOIP 16(1)(b), 18(1)(b), 23(1)(a), 28(1)

In March 2015, an Applicant submitted an access to information request to the City of Moose Jaw (City). The City responded providing partial access to the records requested. It withheld other information pursuant to subsections 18(1)(b), (c), 16(1)(a), (b), (c), 17(1)(b), (d), (e), (f) and 28(1) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). Upon review, the Commissioner found that the City appropriately applied subsections 16(1)(b), 18(1)(b) and 28(1) of LA FOIP. The Commissioner recommended the City continue to withhold the information.

Review Report 112-2015

September 1, 2015

FOIP 6(3), 6(4), 7(2), 9(3), 9(4), 17(1)(a)

The Applicant submitted an access request to the Ministry of Health (Health). Health issued a fee estimate to the Applicant, which the Applicant accepted. Health responded to the Applicant. The Applicant was dissatisfied with the response and appealed to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC). The IPC made a number of findings including that Health did not respond within the legislated timelines. The IPC recommended that Health provide his office with a date when a kaizen event will take place to refine Health’s processing of access to information requests, that Health release some but not all the information it withheld pursuant to subsection 17(1)(a) of FOIP, that Health release the information it had originally labelled as non-responsive, that Health remains committed to refining its method of calculating fee estimates, and that Health include an explanation, using actual numbers of pages, in its responses to access requests if the majority of records alluded to in the fee estimate were not provided because they are records the Applicant explicitly stated she was not seeking.

Review Review 098-2015

September 1, 2015

FOIP 17(1)(b)(i), 18(1)(f), 24(1), 29(1), 30, 59(a)

The Applicant requested records from Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI) related to her deceased son’s auto claim file. SGI provided partial access to the records but withheld portions pursuant to subsections 15(1)(d), 17(1)(b)(i), 18(1)(f) and 29(1) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). Upon review, the Commissioner found that SGI appropriately applied subsections 17(1)(b)(i), 29(1) and 18(1)(f) of FOIP to some of the information in the records and recommended that SGI continue to withhold it. The Commissioner also found that SGI did not apply subsection 29(1) of FOIP appropriately to other information and recommended that this information be released.

Review Report 031-2015

September 1, 2015

FOIP 2(1)(d)(ii), 2(1)(j), 17(1)(b)(i), 18(1)(d), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c), 19(1)(c)(i), 19(1)(c)(ii), 24(1)(d), 24(1)(e), 24(1)(k), 29(1)

The Applicant requested records from Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI) related to an RFP process. SGI provided partial access to records but withheld portions pursuant to subsections 15(1)(d), 17(1)(b)(i), 18(1)(d), (e), (f), 19(1)(a), (b), (c), 22(a) and 29(1) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). Upon review, the Commissioner found that SGI appropriately applied subsections 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c)(i), (c)(ii), 17(1)(b)(i), 29(1) and 18(1)(d) of FOIP to the withheld records. The Commissioner recommended that SGI continue to withhold the records.

Review Report 085-2015

August 27, 2015

FOIP 24(1), 29(1)

In March 2015, an Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI). SGI withheld the expiry and renewal dates of another individual’s vehicle registration pursuant to subsection 29(1) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). Upon review, the Commissioner found that SGI appropriately withheld the information pursuant to subsection 29(1) of FOIP and recommended the information continue to be withheld.

Review Report 130-2015

August 24, 2015

FOIP 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c), 24(1), 24(3)(a), 29(1)

The Ministry of Environment applied subsections 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c) and 29(1) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) to a list of companies and individuals who had submitted mineral exploration proposals for a certain piece of land. The Commissioner found that none of the sections applied and recommended release of the record.

Investigation Report 107-2015

August 21, 2015

HIPA 16, 17(2)(b)

Spruce Manor Special Care Home proactively reported a privacy breach to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) when it found plastic cards containing personal health information in a recycling bin. The IPC found that Spruce Manor Special Care Home lacked comprehensive written policies and procedures to prevent a similar incident from occurring in the future. The IPC recommended that Spruce Manor Special Care Home develop comprehensive written policies and procedures on records management and provide training to its staff once these policies and procedures have been developed.

Review Report 054-2015 and 055-2015

August 19, 2015

LAFOIP 18(1)(b)

In February 2015, an Applicant submitted an access to information request to the City of Regina (City). The City provided partial access the information requested and withheld the financial and commercial information of two third parties pursuant to subsection 18(1)(b) and (c) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). Upon review, the Commissioner found that the information withheld was the financial and commercial information of two third parties and recommended the information continue to be withheld pursuant to subsection 18(1)(b) of LA FOIP.

Investigation Report 092-2015 to 095-2015

August 17, 2015

A care aide worker attended the Legislative Assembly and raised concerns on the quality of care for seniors. The Premier publicly provided assurances to the care aide worker that neither he nor health care workers would face retribution for speaking out about concerns on the quality of care for seniors in the Legislative Assembly. A few weeks later, it became public that the care aide had been suspended. The Opposition asserted that the Premier’s Office had leaked information publicly about the care aide. The care aide appealed to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) about the disclosure of his personal information. In the areas where he had jurisdiction, the IPC found that most of the collection, use and disclosure of personal information were not authorized by The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) and The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). However, in one instance, the IPC found that the Saskatoon Regional Health Authority (SRHA) had authority under LA FOIP to disclose personal information in the public interest. He also found that he did not have jurisdiction to make findings in some areas where there were transactions of the care aide’s personal information. The IPC made a number of recommendations including each responsible agency within his jurisdiction offer an apology to the care aide, and that privacy protection of personal information be extended to offices of members of the Legislative Assembly or to members of Executive Council by amendments to FOIP, the development of a code of conduct for members of the Legislative Assembly, and/or the Government of Saskatchewan updating its Overarching Personal Information Privacy Framework.

Review Report 035-2015

August 7, 2015

LAFOIP 7(4), 13(1)(b), 21

The Applicant requested records from the Rural Municipality of Shellbrook (RM). The RM provided some records to the Applicant in full but refused to confirm or deny the existence of other records pursuant to subsection 7(4) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). Upon review, the Commissioner found that the RM did not appropriately apply subsection 7(4) of LA FOIP and recommended that if responsive records existed they should be released to the Applicant. The RM complied with this recommendation and released two emails to the Applicant.

Review Report 123-2015

July 30, 2015

FOIP 7(2)(e), 12(1)

On December 23, 2014, the Ministry of Justice, Freedom of Information and Privacy branch (Justice) received an access to information request from the Applicant. On January 8, 2015, Justice requested clarification on the request from the Applicant. The Applicant provided Justice with the clarification they required on January 13, 2015. On February 2, 2015, Justice advised the Applicant that they were using an extension of time to respond to the request, pursuant to subsections 12(1)(a)(ii) and (b) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). On March 5, 2015, Justice advised the Applicant that access to the requested records was denied pursuant to subsection 7(2)(e) of FOIP as the requested records did not exist. The Applicant requested a review of Justice decision to use a time extension and their search efforts for responsive records. The Commissioner found that the time extension and search efforts were reasonable. The Commissioner recommended that Justice take no further action.

Investigation Report 100-2015

July 27, 2015

LA FOIP 23(1)(b), 28(1), 28(2)(n), 28(2)(c); LA FOIP Regs 10(g)(i); HIPA 2(m)(i), 2(m)(ii), 2(m)(iv), 2(m)(v), 2(u), 26

Through regular audits, the Saskatoon Regional Health Authority (SRHA) determined that an employee had viewed her own and other individuals’ electronic personal health information without a need-to-know. She viewed the personal health information to satisfy curiosity and to alleviate boredom. SRHA proactively reported the snooping to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC). The IPC made a number of recommendations, including disclosing the details of the disciplinary action taken against the snooper to affected individuals and to employees/practitioners of the regional health authority.

Review Report 087-2015 and 088-2015

July 27, 2015

FOIP 8, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c), 19(3)

The Applicant requested from the Ministry of the Environment two reports supplied by a Third Party. The Ministry applied subsections 19(1)(a), (b) and (c) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) and withheld both records in their entirety. The Commissioner found that subsection 19(1)(b) of FOIP applied to the records and subsection 19(1)(c) only applied to portions of the records. He also found that subsection 19(3) of FOIP applied to portions of the record to which subsection 19(1)(c) did not apply. He recommended release of those portions.

Review Report 032-2015

July 22, 2015

FOIP 8, 16(1), 24(1), 29(1)

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Ministry of Social Services (MSS) for a transition briefing binder. MSS withheld the responsive records in their entirety, citing subsection 16(1)(a) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The Applicant requested a review from the Information and Privacy Commissioner. In the course of the review, MSS advised it was applying all of subsection 16(1) of FOIP to the responsive record. The Commissioner found that some portions of the records at issue were exempt from release pursuant to subsection 16(1) of FOIP and some portions contained personal information pursuant to subsection 24(1) of FOIP and were exempt from release pursuant to subsection 29(1) of FOIP. The Commissioner also found portions of the record were already publicly available or contained information that had been publicly revealed. The Commissioner recommended that MSS continue to withhold the portions of the record where subsections 16(1) and 29(1) of FOIP applied and consider releasing those portions of the record where the information could be found publicly or did not qualify for exemption.

Review Report 111-2015

July 21, 2015

LA FOIP 8, 18(1)(a), 18(1)(b), 18(1)(c), 18(3)

The Applicant requested from the City of Regina two reports supplied by a Third Party. The Commissioner reviewed the application of subsections 18(1)(a), (b) and (c) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). He found that subsection 18(1)(b) of LA FOIP applied to the records and subsection 18(1)(c) only applied to portions of the records. He also found that subsection 18(3) of LA FOIP applied to portions of the record to which subsection 18(1)(c) did not apply. He recommended release of those portions.

Review Report 082-2015

July 17, 2015

LA FOIP 5, 18(1)(a), 18(1)(b), 18(1)(c)

Sunrise Regional Health Authority (Sunrise) received a request for a Master Services Agreement (MSA) between two third parties. Sunrise did not have possession of the MSA but did identify a Costing Model Template (CMT) that was also responsive to the request. As a result of the review the Commissioner found that Sunrise had control over MSA. He found that subsections 18(1)(a), (b) and (c) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP) did not apply to the MSA or CMT. He recommended the MSA and CMT be released to the Applicant. He also recommended that Sunrise clarify its LA FOIP obligations in written agreements with 3sHealth.

Review Report 084-2015

July 9, 2015

LA FOIP 18(1)(a), 18(1)(b), 18(1)(c)

The Applicant requested records from the City of Lloydminster (the City). The City responded that some of the requested records did not exist and denied access to the other records requested pursuant to subsection 18(1)(a), (b) and (c) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). The Commissioner found that the City provided reasonable documentation to conclude that some of the records did not exist and recommended the City take no further action regarding these records. The Commissioner found that the City did not provide sufficient evidence to support the exemptions applied to the records the Applicant was denied access to and recommended the City release the record to the Applicant.

Review Report 023-2015

July 8, 2015

FOIP, 8, 16(1)

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Ministry of Parks, Culture and Sport (PCS) for a transition briefing binder. PCS withheld the responsive records in their entirety, citing subsection 16(1)(a) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The Applicant requested a review from the Information and Privacy Commissioner. In the course of the review, PCS advised it was applying all of subsection 16(1) of FOIP to the responsive record. The Commissioner found that some portions of the records at issue were exempt from release pursuant to subsection 16(1) of FOIP and some portions contained personal information pursuant to subsection 24(1) of FOIP and were exempt from release pursuant to subsection 29(1) of FOIP. The Commissioner also found portions of the record were already publicly available or contained information that had been publicly revealed. The Commissioner recommended that PCS continue to withhold the portions of the record where subsections 16(1) and 29(1) of FOIP applied and consider releasing those portions of the record where the information could be found publicly or did not qualify for exemption.

Review Report 033-2015

July 6, 2015

FOIP 8, 16(1), 24(1), 29(1)

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to Saskatchewan Telecommunications (SaskTel) for a Transition Briefing Binder. SaskTel withheld the responsive records in their entirety, citing subsection 16(1) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The Applicant requested a review from the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The Commissioner found that some portions of the records at issue were exempt from release pursuant to subsection 16(1) of FOIP and some portions contained personal information pursuant to subsection 24(1) of FOIP and were exempt from release pursuant to subsection 29(1) of FOIP. The Commissioner also found portions of the record were already publicly available or contained information that had been publicly revealed. The Commissioner recommended that SaskTel continue to withhold the portions of the record where subsections 16(1) and 29(1) of FOIP applied and consider releasing those portions of the record where the information could be found publicly or did not qualify for exemption.

Review Report 051-2015

July 2, 2015

FOIP 8, 16(1)(a), 16(1)(c), 17(1)(a)

The Ministry of Finance identified 36 records responsive to the Applicant’s access request. It applied subsections 16(1)(a), 16(1)(c) and 17(1)(a) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) to the records. The Commissioner found that the exemptions only applied to 31 of the records and recommended release of the responsive portions of the other 5 records.

Review Report 083-2015

June 30, 2015

FOIP 7(2)(e)

The Applicant requested records from Saskatchewan Telecommunications (SaskTel). SaskTel responded that the requested records did not exist and denied access to the records pursuant to subsection 7(2)(e) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The Commissioner found that SaskTel provided a reasonable explanation for why the records did not exist. The Commissioner recommended that SaskTel take no further action with regard to this record.

Review Report 091-2014

June 29, 2015

FOIP 13(2), 17(1)(a), 17(1)(c), 18(1)(e), 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c), 22(a), 29(1)

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Ministry of Health (Health). When she did not receive a response within the legislated timeline, she appealed to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC). In the course of the review, the Applicant received a response but was not satisfied. Health had withheld records pursuant to subsections 13(2), 16(1)(a), 17(1)(a), 17(1)(c), 18(1)(e), 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c)(iii), 22(a) and 29(1) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The IPC found that Health can legitimately withhold information pursuant to subsections 13(2), 17(1)(a), and 29(1) of FOIP on some of the responsive records. He recommended that Health release the remainder of the records.

Review Report 022-2015

June 26, 2015

FOIP 8, 16(1), 24(1), 29(1)

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Ministry of Environment (Environment) for a Transition Briefing Binder. Environment withheld the responsive records in their entirety, citing subsection 16(1)(a) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The Applicant requested a review from the Information and Privacy Commissioner. In the course of the review, Environment advised they were applying all of subsection 16(1) of FOIP to the responsive records. The Commissioner found that while some portions of the records at issue were exempt from release pursuant to subsection 16(1) of FOIP and some portions contained personal information pursuant to subsection 24(1) of FOIP and were exempt from release pursuant to subsection 29(1) of FOIP. The Commissioner also found there were also portions of the record that were already publicly available or had been publicly revealed. The Commissioner recommended that Environment continue to withhold the portions of the record where 16(1) and 29(1) of FOIP applied and consider releasing those portions of the record where the information could be found publicly or did not qualify for exemption.

Review Report 020-2015

June 26, 2015

FOIP 8, 16(1), 24(1), 29(1)

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Ministry of Advanced Education (Advanced Education) for a Transition Briefing Binder. Advanced Education withheld the responsive records in their entirety, citing subsection 16(1)(a) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The Applicant requested a review from the Information and Privacy Commissioner. In the course of the review, Advanced Education advised they were applying all of subsection 16(1) of FOIP to the responsive records. The Commissioner found that while some portions of the records at issue were exempt from release pursuant to subsection 16(1) of FOIP and some portions contained personal information pursuant to subsection 24(1) of FOIP and were exempt from release pursuant to subsection 29(1) of FOIP. The Commissioner also found there were also portions of the record that were already publicly available or had been publicly revealed. The Commissioner recommended that Advanced Education continue to withhold the portions of the record where 16(1) and 29(1) of FOIP applied and consider releasing those portions of the record where the information could be found publicly or did not qualify for exemption.
I BACKGROUND

Review Report 019-2015

June 26, 2015

FOIP 8, 16(1), 24(1), 29(1)

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Saskatchewan Transportation Company (STC) for a Transition Briefing Binder. STC withheld the responsive records in their entirety, citing subsection 16(1) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The Applicant requested a review from the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The Commissioner found that while some portions of the records at issue were exempt from release pursuant to subsection 16(1) of FOIP and some portions contained personal information pursuant to subsection 24(1) of FOIP and were exempt from release pursuant to subsection 29(1) of FOIP. The Commissioner also found there were also portions of the record that were already publicly available or had been publicly revealed. The Commissioner recommended that STC continue to withhold the portions of the record where 16(1) and 29(1) of FOIP applied and consider releasing those portions of the record where the information could be found publicly or did not qualify for exemption.

Review Report 018-2015

June 26, 2015

FOIP 8, 16(1), 24(1), 29(1)

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to the SaskBuilds Corporation (SaskBuilds) for a Transition Briefing Binder. SaskBuilds withheld the responsive records in their entirety, citing subsection 16(1)(b) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The Applicant requested a review from the Information and Privacy Commissioner. In the course of the review, SaskBuilds advised they were applying all of subsection 16(1) of FOIP to the responsive records. The Commissioner found that while some portions of the records at issue were exempt from release pursuant to subsection 16(1) of FOIP and some portions contained personal information pursuant to subsection 24(1) of FOIP and were exempt from release pursuant to subsection 29(1) of FOIP. The Commissioner also found there were also portions of the record that were already publicly available or had been publicly revealed. The Commissioner recommended that SaskBuilds continue to withhold the portions of the record where 16(1) and 29(1) of FOIP applied and consider releasing those portions of the record where the information could be found publicly or did not qualify for exemption.

Review Report 017-2015

June 26, 2015

FOIP 8, 16(1), 24(1), 29(1)

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Saskatchewan Gaming Corporation (SaskGaming) for a Transition Briefing Binder. SaskGaming withheld the responsive records in their entirety, citing subsection 16(1)(a) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The Applicant requested a review from the Information and Privacy Commissioner. In the course of the review, SaskGaming advised they were applying all of subsection 16(1) of FOIP to the responsive records. The Commissioner found that some portions of the records at issue were exempt from release pursuant to subsection 16(1) of FOIP and some portions contained personal information pursuant to subsection 24(1) of FOIP and were exempt from release pursuant to subsection 29(1) of FOIP. The Commissioner also found there were portions of the record that were already publicly available or had been publicly revealed. The Commissioner recommended that SaskGaming continue to withhold the portions of the record where 16(1) and 29(1) of FOIP applied and consider releasing those portions of the record where the information could be found publicly or did not qualify for exemption.

Review Report 016-2015

June 26, 2015

FOIP 8, 16(1), 24(1), 29(1)

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure (Highways) for a Transition Briefing Binder. Highways withheld the responsive records in their entirety, citing subsection 16(1)(a) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The Applicant requested a review from the Information and Privacy Commissioner. In the course of the review, Highways advised they were applying all of subsection 16(1) of FOIP to the responsive records. The Commissioner found that some portions of the records at issue were exempt from release pursuant to subsection 16(1) of FOIP and some portions contained personal information pursuant to subsection 24(1) of FOIP and were exempt from release pursuant to subsection 29(1) of FOIP. The Commissioner also found there were portions of the record that were already publicly available or had been publicly revealed. The Commissioner recommended that Highways continue to withhold the portions of the record where 16(1) and 29(1) of FOIP applied and consider releasing those portions of the record where the information could be found publicly or did not qualify for exemption.

Review Report 059-2014

June 26, 2015

FOIP 6(3), 6(4), 7(2)(d), 11(1)(a)

The Applicant made an access to information request to the Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure for certain contracts. Although the Ministry provided the Applicant with 895 responsive records, she was not satisfied with the Ministry’s response. The Commissioner found that the Ministry did not comply with section 11 of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) nor meet the duty to assist. He recommended the Ministry provide more training to its staff and work with Saskatchewan Archives Board to improve compliance with FOIP.

Review Report 096-2015 and 097-2015

June 22, 2015

FOIP 5

In March 2015, two Applicants submitted access to information requests to the Saskatchewan Transportation Company (STC) for emails sent or received by an STC employee that included any variation of their names. STC released records responsive to the Applicants’ requests and advised that other records that could be responsive to the request were not under their possession or control as they were personal emails of the STC employee. The Commissioner found that STC did not have possession or control of the STC employee’s personal emails and therefore FOIP did not apply. As FOIP was not found to apply, the Commissioner recommended that STC take no further action regarding the request.

Review Report 024-2015

June 17, 2015

FOIP 5

The Applicant requested records from Financial and Consumer Affairs Authority (FCAA) which the FCAA indicated were not in its possession or control but rather in the possession and/or control of the Insurance Councils of Saskatchewan. The Commissioner found that the records requested were not in the possession or control of the FCAA. As a result of this finding, no recommendations were made.

Investigation Report 034-2015

June 11, 2015

LA FOIP 23(1), 24, 25(2)

The Complainant was concerned about audio surveillance on City of Saskatoon (the City) Access Transit buses. She complained to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC). The IPC found that while the City has authority under The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP) to use audio surveillance, the IPC said it should use surveillance in the most privacy protective manner possible. In the course of the investigation, the IPC made a number of recommendations to the City, including conducting a privacy impact assessment and updating its surveillance policy. The City responded by stating it would comply with such recommendations.

Review Report 050-2015

June 11, 2015

FOIP 16(1)(a), 17(1)(a)

The Ministry of Finance identified 16 records responsive to the Applicant’s access request. It applied subsection 16(1)(a) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) to 12 of the responsive records. The Commissioner found that this exemption applied to 10 of the documents. The Ministry applied subsection 17(1)(a) of FOIP to 10 records. The Commissioner found recommended that the Ministry release three of the records to the Applicant.

Review Report 042-2015

May 27, 2015

FOIP 17(1)(a), 17(1)(b), 17(1)(g), 18(1)(d), 18(1)(f), 29(1)

SLGA identified 25 records responsive to the Applicant’s request – 23 Excel Workbooks and two other documents. The Commissioner found that 22 of the Excel Workbooks contained only raw numerical data would not qualify for exemption under subsections 17(1)(a), (b), (g), 18(1)(d) and (f) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). He recommended SLGA release most of these records, severing any personal information. He found that subsection 17(1)(a) applied to the remaining documents.

Review Report 078-2015

May 26, 2015

FOIP 29(1), HIPA 2(m), 27(1)

The Applicant requested a record that contained information about himself and another individual from the Ministry of Labour Relations and Workplace Safety. The Commissioner found that the information about the other individual qualified as personal health information pursuant to subsection 2(m) of The Health Information Protection Act. He recommended that the Ministry continue to withhold the record.

Review Report 043-2015

May 25, 2015

FOIP 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c), 19(3)

The Applicant made an access to information request to the Ministry of Environment for annual environmental reports from a certain Third Party business. The Ministry and the Third Party indicated that subsections 19(1)(b) and 19(1)(c) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) applied to portions of the record. The Commissioner found that subsection 19(1)(b) did not apply but 19(1)(c) did apply. However, he recommended that the Ministry release information that the Ministry required from the Third Party as it was in the public interest pursuant to subsection 19(3) of FOIP. He also recommended that the Ministry develop a strategy to educate Third Party businesses on the requirements of FOIP.

Review Report 039-2015 and 040-2015

May 25, 2015

FOIP 5

The Applicant made two requests for certain records. The Ministry of Labour Relations and Workplace Safety indicated that responsive records did not exist. The Commissioner found that the Ministry performed a reasonable search.

Review Report 129-2014

May 25, 2015

FOIP 7(2), 12(1)

The Applicant submitted an access request to the Ministry of Health (Health). The Applicant received notice from Health that it would be extending the period to respond pursuant to the access request pursuant to subsection 12(1)(a)(i) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). After a conversation with Health, the Applicant asserts that she was advised by Health to withdraw her request, and submit two new access requests. She did so. Unfortunately, she still did not receive a response to neither request within legislated timelines. 138 days elapsed before she received a response to one of her requests. She was also concerned that certain records were not included in the response from
Health. She appealed to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC). The IPC found that Health did not respond to the Applicant within the legislated timelines and that Health conducted an adequate search for records. He recommended that Health continue to strive to respond to access requests within the legislated timelines and that Health continues to
clarify access requests with applicants.

Review Report 021-2015

May 20, 2015

FOIP 8, 16(1), 24(1), 29(1)

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Ministry of Central Services (Central Services). Central Services withheld the responsive records in their entirety, citing subsection 16(1)(a) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The Applicant requested a review from the Information and Privacy Commissioner. In the course of the review, Central Services advised they were applying all of subsection 16(1) of FOIP to the responsive records. The Commissioner found that the records at issue were exempt from release pursuant to subsection 16(1)(a) of FOIP and recommended that Central Services continue to withhold the responsive records.

Review Report 090-2014

May 20, 2015

FOIP 7(2), 12(1), 17(1)(a)

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Ministry of Health (Health). She did not receive a response within the legislated timelines so she appealed to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC). 163 days after the access to information request was submitted, the Applicant received a response from Health. The Applicant was not satisfied with the response either. The IPC found that Health did not respond to the access to information request within the legislated timelines but he found that subsection 17(1)(a) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) was properly applied. He recommended that Health make changes to its processes so that it responds to access to information requests within legislated timelines, that it continue to withhold information pursuant to subsection 17(1)(a) of FOIP but to release the remainder of the record.

Review Report 041-2015

May 12, 2015

FOIP 8, 16(1)(a), 16(1)(b), 17(1)(a)

The Applicant made a request for records that contained cabinet confidences. The Ministry of Finance applied subsections 16(1)(a), (b) and 17(1)(a) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) to the record. The Commissioner found that the exemptions applied.

Review Report 128-2014

May 12, 2015

FOIP 6(3), 6(4), 7(2), 12(1)

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Ministry of Health (Health). Applicant received notice from Health that it would be extending the period to respond pursuant to the access request pursuant to subsection 12(1)(a)(i) of FOIP. After a conversation with Health, the Applicant asserts that she was advised by Health to withdraw her request, and submit two new access to information requests. She did so. Unfortunately, she still did not receive a response to neither request within legislated timelines. 151 days elapsed before she received a response to one of her requests. She appealed to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC). In the course of the review, Health assured the IPC that it was committed to responding to applicants in a timely manner, and that it has implemented standard work where it will clarify requests early on in its access request process. The IPC found that Health did not respond within legislated timelines. He recommended that Health continue to strive to respond to access requests within legislated timelines.

Review Report 063-2015 to 077-2015

April 30, 2015

FOIP 7(2), 12(1)

The Applicant submitted 15 access to information requests to the Ministry of Health (Health) over the course of four months. She appealed to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) when she did not receive responses to the requests. During the review, Health responded to 14 of the 15 access to information requests. It also stated it would conduct a kaizen event that will focus on the routing, review and approval of responses to access to information requests. The IPC found that Health did not respond to the access to information requests within the legislated timelines. The IPC recommended that Health respond to the remaining access to information request within a week of the issuance of this Review Report. He also recommended that Health conduct the kaizen event within a month of the issuance of this Review Report.

Review Report 026-2015

April 28, 2015

FOIP 7(2)(e)

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Ministry of Health (Health). Health responded by stating that no records exist. The Applicant appealed to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC). The IPC found that there was a misunderstanding of the Applicant’s request, and therefore, found that Health did not make a reasonable effort to locate the requested records. The IPC recommended that Health complete another search for records.

Review Report 047-2015

April 22, 2015

FOIP 19(1)(c)

The Ministry of Environment was set to release the responsive record to the Applicant; however the Third Party objected and requested a review from the Commissioner. The Third Party did not provide a submission to the Commissioner. The Commissioner recommended release of the record.

Review Report 036-2015

April 17, 2015

FOIP 17(1)(a)

The Ministry of Parks, Culture and Sport applied section 17(1)(a) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) to two memorandums prepared by a Special Advisor. The Commissioner agreed that the exemption applied and recommended that the Ministry take no further action.

Review Report 114-2014

April 17, 2015

FOIP 7(2), 12(1)

The Applicant submitted three separate access to information requests to the Ministry of Health (Health). It took Health 170 days to respond to her first access to information request, and it took Health 113 days to respond to her third request. The Applicant’s second request was dealt within a separate Review Report. The Commissioner found that Health did not respond to the first and third access to information requests within the legislated timelines. Health asserted that it has made changes to its processes and will continue to strive to respond to access to information requests to meet legislated timelines. The Commissioner recommended that Health remain committed to its efforts to respond to access to information requests within the legislated timelines.

Review Report 037-2015

April 7, 2015

FOIP 17(1)(a)

The Applicant made a request for certain records. The Ministry of the Economy applied subsections 17(1)(a), (b)(i), (c), (g), 18(1)(d), (e), (f) and (g) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) to the record. The Commissioner found that subsection 17(1)(a) of FOIP applied to the record.

Review Report 025-2015

April 2, 2015

LA FOIP 5, 7(2)(e)

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Resort Village of Candle Lake (Village). The Village responded to the Applicant denying access because no responsive records existed. Upon review, the Commissioner found that the Village had conducted a reasonable search for responsive records.

Review Report 007-2015

March 31, 2015

FOIP 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c)

In November 2014, the Ministry of Central Services received an access to information request. The Ministry denied access to portions of the responsive record pursuant to subsection 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c) and 29(1) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The Applicant requested the Commissioner review the Ministry’s application of subsection 19(1)(b) and 19(1)(c) of FOIP to withhold portions of the record. The Commissioner found these exemptions did not apply and recommended the Ministry release these portions of the record.

Review Report 145-2014

March 16, 2015

FOIP 9(5), FOIP Regulations: 9(b)(i)

The Applicant requested a fee waiver when he requested certain records from Saskatchewan Research Council (SRC). SRC informed the Applicant that it would not waive the fees. The Applicant requested a review. The Commissioner established a test to determine whether the release of records would be in the public interest. In this review, he found that the prescribed circumstances for a fee waiver did not exist.

Review Report 122-2014

March 3, 2015

LA FOIP 3(1)(b), 4(a), 4(b), 7, 18(1)(c)(ii), 18(1)(c)(iii)

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Village of Lebret (Village) but the Village denied access to the requested record cited subsections 18(1)(c)(ii) and (iii) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). The Commissioner found that the subsections did not apply and recommended that the Village release the record.

Review Report 122-2014

March 3, 2015

LA FOIP 3(1)(b), 4(a), 4(b), 7, 18(1)(c)(ii), 18(1)(c)(iii)

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Village of Lebret (Village) but the Village denied access to the requested record cited subsections 18(1)(c)(ii) and (iii) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). The Commissioner found that the subsections did not apply and recommended that the Village release the record.

Review Report 113-2014

March 3, 2015

FOIP 7(2), 12(1), 16(1)

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Ministry of (Health) but did not receive a response within the legislated timelines. She appealed to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC). 83 days after Health received the request, the Applicant received a response from Health. Health withheld some information pursuant to subsection 16(1) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The Commissioner recommended that Health make the necessary changes to its processes so that it can respond to access to information requests within the legislated timelines. He also recommended that Health continue to withhold some information pursuant to subsection 16(1) but release the remainder of the information.

Review Report 125-2014

February 27, 2015

FOIP 18(1)(d)

The Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure applied subsection 18(1)(d) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) to certain parts of the record. The Commissioner found the exemption did not apply and recommended release of all portions of the record withheld under this exemption.

Investigation Report 046-2014

February 26, 2015

HIPA 4(4), 4(6), 19, 20(2), 23(1), 24(1), FOIP 23, 24(1.1)

The Commissioner received a complaint that Saskatchewan Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) had collected too much personal health information of an individual who had a claim regarding a back injury. The Commissioner considered which portions of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) and The Health Information Protection Act (HIPA) applied in these circumstances. He found that the collection provisions of FOIP and HIPA did not apply. However, he found that WCB did not adhere to certain provisions of The Workers’ Compensation Act, 2013. He recommended that WCB develop policies and procedures that address the over collection of personal health information.

Review Report 139-2014

February 25, 2015

FOIP 9(3), FOIP Regulations 6(2)

Saskatchewan Research Council (SRC) received an access to information request. In response, it indicated to the Applicant that fees would be applied to the record. The Applicant was dissatisfied with the estimate and requested a review. The Commissioner found that SRC did not provide enough information to support its fee estimate. He found that a reasonable fee estimate would be $165.

Review Report 112-2014

February 24, 2015

FOIP 7(2), 12(1)

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Ministry of Health (Health) but did not receive a response within the legislated timelines. She appealed to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC). 162 days after Health received the request, the Applicant received a response from Health. The Commissioner recommended that Health make the necessary changes to its processes so it can respond to access to information requests within the legislated timelines.

Review Report 146-2014

February 20, 2015

FOIP 22(b)

Saskatchewan Research Council (SRC) applied subsection 22(b) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) to a record requested by the Applicant. The record was created by external legal counsel for SRC. The record was copied to a staff member of the Provincial Auditor’s office. The Commissioner found that the exemption did apply.

Review Report 144-2014

February 20, 2015

FOIP 9(3), FOIP Regulations 6(2)

Saskatchewan Research Council (SRC) received an access to information request. In response, it indicated to the Applicant that fees would be applied to the record. The Applicant was dissatisfied with the estimate and requested a review. The Commissioner found that SRC’s fee estimate was reasonable.

Review Report 143-2014

February 20, 2015

FOIP 17(1)(a)

Saskatchewan Research Council (SRC) received an access request for certain records. In response, SRC provided some responsive records, indicated that some did not exist and that others were being withheld pursuant to sections 17 and 22 of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The Commissioner found that SRC performed a reasonable search for records and that subsection 17(1)(a) of FOIP applied to the withheld record.

Review Report 115-2014

February 18, 2015

FOIP 7(2), 12(1)

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Ministry of Health (Health) but did not receive a response within the legislated timelines. She appealed to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) and eventually received a response from Health. The Commissioner recommended that Health make the necessary changes to its processes so it can respond to access to information requests within the legislated timelines.

Review Report 124-2015

February 16, 2015

FOIP 12(1)(a)(ii), 15(1)(c), 15(1)(k), 17(1)(a), 17(1)(b)(i), 13(1)(a), 29(1), 24(1)(b)

The Applicant submitted a request for emails regarding an investigation. The Saskatchewan Police Commission (SPC) responded to the Applicant advising that they would be extending the response period pursuant to subsection 12(1)(a)(ii) and 12(1)(b) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). SPC then responded to the Applicant’s request releasing portions of the responsive records. SPC withheld portions of the records pursuant to subsections 29(1), 13(1)(a), 16(1)(a) and 17(1)(a) of FOIP, as well as subsection 27(1) of The Health Information Protection Act (HIPA). In SPC’s submission, it also applied subsections 15(1)(c), 15(1)(e), 15(1)(f), 15(1)(k), 15(1)(m), 17(1)(b)(i), 17(1)(b)(ii) and 22 of FOIP to withhold the remaining portions of the record. It was found that SPC had appropriately applied a time extension to the response, the search for records was reasonable and some portions of the records had been appropriately withheld. SPC released the pages to the Applicant where the exemptions were found not to apply. It is recommended that SPC take no further action regarding this matter.

Review Report 111-2014

February 13, 2015

FOIP 7(2), 12(1)

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Ministry of Health (Health). She did not receive a response within the legislated timelines so she appealed to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC). Eventually, the Applicant received a response from Health but the IPC found that Health did not respond to the request within the legislated timelines. In the course of the review, Health made a commitment to make changes to its processes in order to improve its response times. The IPC recommended that Health continue to make necessary changes at least until it is able to respond to request within the legislated timelines.

Review Report 018-2014

February 12, 2015

FOIP Regulations 6(2)

Saskatchewan Research Council (SRC) received an access request with 22 different sub-requests. In response, it provided the Applicant with a fee estimate of $148,260 for nine of the sub-requests. Through negotiations, five of the sub-requests were resolved and the fee estimate was lowered. The Commissioner found that SRC did not provide enough information to support its fee estimate and found a fee of $225 to be reasonable.

Investigation Report 077-2014

February 10, 2015

HIPA 16(a), 16(b)(i), 16(b)(ii), 16(c), 17(2)(b), 23(2)

Employees of the Cypress Regional Health Authority (Cypress) contacted this office to express concern over a project where patient files containing personal health information were being “stripped”. The Commissioner found that there were not adequate safeguards in place and those without a need-to-know where involved in the project. He also found that the personal health information was not destroyed in a manner which protects privacy. As such, he found that Cypress violated sections 16, 17 and 23 of The Health Information Protection Act. The Commissioner recommended Cypress enhance policies and procedures, ensure all employees have received privacy training, provide breach notification to affected individuals and create a project charter for each new project involving personal health information.

Review Report 068-2014

February 10, 2015

FOIP 5

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Ministry of Health (Health) for a copy of a contract. Health responded by stating the record does not exist. The Applicant appealed to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC). The IPC found that Health made a reasonable effort to search for records. Due to his finding, the IPC had no recommendations.

Review Report 034-2014

February 10, 2015

FOIP 15(1)(c), 17(1)(b), 21, 29(1), 31(2)

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB). WCB responded by providing the Applicant with some of the records but cited subsections 15(1)(c), 17(1)(b)(i), 21, 29(1) and 31(2) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) as its reason for withholding remaining portions of the records. The Applicant appealed to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC). The IPC found that WCB appropriately applied subsections 15(1)(c) and 29(1) of FOIP to withhold portions of the records. However, he found that WCB did not demonstrate that subsections 17(1)(b)(i), 21, and 31(2) of FOIP applied. The IPC recommended that WCB continue to withhold certain portions of the records but to also release to the Applicant her own personal information and to where the IPC found no exemptions apply.

Investigation Report 072-2014

February 9, 2015

FOIP 27, 26(1), 26(3), 28, 29, FOIP Regulations 16(c)

The Complainant contacted this office to inform us of a situation regarding himself and his daughter. SaskTel had used the Complainant’s personal information when it set up a pre-authorized payment account (PAP) for his daughter. This resulted in several unauthorized uses and disclosures of the Complainant’s personal information. SaskTel violated sections 26(3), 27, 28 and 29 of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The daughter ended up paying the Complainant’s telephone bill for two years. The Commissioner recommended enhanced policies and procedures and that SaskTel issue an apology to the Complainant and his daughter.

Review Report 150-2014

February 6, 2015

LA FOIP 14(1)(d)

In December 2014, the City of Saskatoon (City) received an access to information request. In response, the City advised it was denying access in full pursuant to subsection 14(1)(d) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). Upon review, the Commissioner found that the City had not established that subsection 14(1)(d) of LA FOIP applied to the record and recommended that it be released.

Review Report 148-2014

February 6, 2015

FOIP 16(1)(a)

In November 2014, the Ministry of Central Services (Central Services) received an access to information request. In response, Central Services advised the Applicant that it was denying access pursuant to subsection 16(1)(a) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). Upon review, the Commissioner found that Central Services had appropriately applied subsection 16(1)(a) of FOIP to the record and recommended it continue to be withheld.

Review Report 011-2014

February 5, 2015

LA FOIP 26, 31(2)(a), 31(2)(b), 23(1)(k)

The applicant asked for a correction of his personal information on a specific record. The Village of Killaly failed to demonstrate that the personal information was accurate. It did not respond appropriately to the applicant as required by section 31 of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). The Commissioner recommended it provide an appropriate response to the applicant and make a correction to the record.

Review Report 209-2015 to 213-2015

February 1, 2015

FOIP 7(2), 12(1)(a)(i)

The Commissioner found that the Ministry of Health (Health) did not respond to five access to information requests within the legislated timelines. He reviewed Health’s step-by-step procedure for responding to requests and made some recommendations including limiting the number of Ministry officials required to sign off on its responses.

Review Report 117-2013

January 23, 2015

FOIP 16(1), 17(1)(b), 19(1)(b)

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Ministry of Health (Health). Health provided the Applicant with redacted records. Health cited subsections 16(1)(c), 17(1)(b)(i), 17(1)(b)(iii), and 19(1)(b) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) as reasons for withholding portions of the records. The Applicant appealed to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC). The IPC found that subsections 17(1)(b)(i) and 19(1)(b) of FOIP was not applicable to the portion of the records to which Health applied them. He found that subsection 17(1)(b)(iii) of FOIP applied to some but not all portions of the records to which Health applied it. Finally, the IPC found that subsection 16(1) of FOIP applied to the portions of the records to which Health applied it. The IPC recommended that Health release the portions of the records where he found no exemptions apply.

Review Report 116-2013

January 23, 2015

FOIP 16(1)(d), 17(1)(b), 19(1)(b)

The Applicant submitted a request to the Ministry of Health (Health). Health responded by providing redacted copies of the responsive records, citing subsections 17(1)(a), 17(1)(b)(i), and 19(1)(b) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The Applicant appealed to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC). In its submission, Health also raised subsections 16(1)(d)(i) and 17(1)(b)(iii) of FOIP for reasons to withhold portions of the responsive records. The IPC found that subsection 19(1)(b) of FOIP does not apply to any of the responsive records, subsection 17(1)(a) of FOIP applies to some but not all of the responsive records to which Health applied it to, subsection 17(1)(b)(i) of FOIP is not applicable to the portion of the responsive record that Health applied it to, subsection 17(1)(b)(iii) of FOIP is not applicable to the portions of the record to which Health applied it to. The IPC recommended that Health release the portions of the records to which he found that no exemptions apply. He also recommended that Health complete a line-by-line review of the report found on pages 50 to 168 of the responsive records and only sever the portions of the report that qualify as advice, proposals, recommendations, analyses or policy options.

Review Report 086-2014

January 22, 2015

LA FOIP 23(1)(b), 23(1)(h), 23(1)(k), 28(1); LA FOIP Regulations 10(g)(i)

The Applicant made an access to information request to Prince Albert Parkland Regional Health Authority (PAPRHA) for information relating to an alleged assault. PAPRHA withheld potions of the records pursuant to subsection 28(1) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). The Commissioner found some of the information did not qualify as personal information and recommended release. He also recommended release of the name of an employee who was disciplined pursuant to subsection 10(g)(i) of the LA FOIP Regulations.

Investigation Report 151-2014

January 22, 2015

HIPA 2(m)(i), 2(m)(ii), 2(b), 24(1), 25(1)(f), 27(2)(a), 27(2)(b), 27(4)(b)

The Commissioner received a complaint that the Ministry of Justice (Justice) had collected and disclosed personal health information without authority. The Commissioner found that Justice had authority to collect and disclose the Complainant’s personal health information pursuant to subsections 24(1), 25(1)(f), 27(a), (b) and 27(4)(b) of The Health Information Protection Act.

Review Report 031-2014

January 22, 2015

FOIP 7(2)(e)

The Applicant requested information such as the date, location and patient outcomes, regarding critical incidents reported to the Ministry of Health (Health) since 2004. He wanted the information to be formatted into an electronic searchable form. Initially, Health refused the Applicant access to records, citing subsections 15(1)(c) and 17(3) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as its reasons. The Applicant appealed to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC). He asserted that he did not want the critical incident reports themselves but he only wanted information such as the date, location and patient outcomes. In the course of the review, Health asserted it should not have refused the Applicant access to the records but should have responded to the Applicant pursuant to subsection 7(2)(e) of FOIP – that the records do not exist. The IPC found that Health would have had to cull through critical incident reports and create a new record in order for the information to be in electronic searchable form. FOIP does not require a public body to create a new record to respond to an access to information request. As such, the IPC found that the record requested by the Applicant does not exist. He recommended that the Health continue to assert that the records do not exist.

Review Report 149-2014

January 15, 2015

FOIP Regulations 6(2), 5(3)

The Applicant requested records from Financial and Consumer Affairs Authority (FCAA) and received a fee estimate for $1,063.75. The Commissioner found that the fee was reasonable.

Review Report 114-2013

January 13, 2015

LA FOIP 9, LA FOIP Regs, 5(2)(a), 5(3), 6(2)

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Saskatoon Public Library (SPL). SPL issued a fee estimate to the Applicant. The Applicant appealed the fee estimate to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC). The IPC found that the fee estimate was reasonable. He recommended that the fee estimate remain the same.

Review Report 125-2015

January 11, 2015

FOIP 12(1)(a)(ii), 12(1)(b), 22(b), 22(c)

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Ministry of Justice (Justice) for email correspondence pertaining to him held within the Public Prosecutions division of Justice. Justice applied a time extension pursuant to subsection 12(1)(a)(ii) and 12(1)(b) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). Justice then advised the Applicant that access to these records was denied pursuant to subsections 13(1)(a), 15(1)(c), 15(1)(k), 17(1)(a), 22(a), 22(b), 22(c) and 29(1) of FOIP. The Commissioner found that the time extension was applied appropriately pursuant to subsection 12(1)(a)(ii) of FOIP. The Commissioner also found that subsections 22(b) and 22(c) of FOIP applied to the responsive records. The Commissioner recommended that Justice continue to withhold the responsive records but consider releasing information that the Applicant had provided, such as the Applicant’s interview transcript.

2014

Review Report 052-2013

December 18, 2014

LA FOIP 21(a)

The Applicant requested records that detail the funds charged to the Village of Buena Vista on behalf of certain council members, the repayment plans of the council members, and records that detail the legal fees paid by the Village on the Mayor’s behalf. The Village responded by stating that some of the records she requested did not exist and it was withholding other records, namely four invoices, pursuant to subsection 18(1)(b) and 18(1)(c) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). The Commissioner found that the Village provided sufficient evidence that records do not exist. He also found that subsection 21(a) of LA FOIP applies to the invoices. Therefore, he recommended that the Village continue to withhold the records.

Investigation Report 121-2014

December 15, 2014

LA FOIP 23(1)(b), 23(1)(k)(i), 27(b), 28(2)(s) LA FOIP Regulations 10(d), 10(f), 10(g)(i)

The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) received three complaints involving the collection, use, disclosure and safeguarding of the personal information of the Complainant’s son by the Lloydminster Public School Division (LPSD). The Commissioner found that the LPSD had authority to use and disclose the personal information of the Complainant’s son pursuant to subsections 27(b) and 28(2)(s) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP) and subsections 10(d), (f) and (g)(i) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Regulations. Further, the Commissioner found no evidence to support the allegation that the LPSD collected and used photographs of the Complainant’s son in the classroom or that the LPSD had failed to safeguard personal information. Given these findings, no recommendations were made.

Review Report 100-2013

December 12, 2014

FOIP 2(1)(d), 2(2)(b)

The Applicant submitted a request to Executive Council for records related to tweets by a columnist at a newspaper. Executive Council responded by stating no records exist. The Applicant appealed to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC). The IPC found that the records were not in the possession or control of Executive Council. Therefore, he did not have any recommendations regarding access.

Review Report 079-2013

December 12, 2014

FOIP 16(1)(a), 17(1)(f)

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to Executive Council for records related to the sale of all or part of the Information Services Corporation. Executive Council responded by stating that no records exist. The Applicant appealed to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC). In the course of the review, Executive Council continued to argue that no records exist but provided the IPC with two non-responsive records and cited subsection 16(1)(a) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) as a reason to withhold one of the records and subsection 17(1)(f)(i) of FOIP as a reason to withhold the other record. The IPC found that Executive Council demonstrated it completed a reasonable and adequate search for records. He also found that while subsection 16(1)(a) of FOIP applies to the one record, he found that subsection 17(1)(f)(i) of FOIP did not apply to the other. In the course of the review, Executive Council agreed to release this record to the Applicant.

Review Report 056-2014

December 4, 2014

FOIP 5

In April 2014, an Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Ministry of Justice (Justice). Justice advised the Applicant that it did not have any records responsive to the access to information request in its possession or control and therefore denied access pursuant to subsection 7(2)(e) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The Applicant proceeded to request a review by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC). Upon review, the Commissioner found that Justice did not have responsive records within its possession or control and that the Office of the Chief Coroner (OCC) was not a government institution pursuant to subsection 2(d) of FOIP. The Commissioner recommended that Justice take steps to amend The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Regulations to include the OCC as a prescribed government institution.

Investigation Report 038-2014

November 25, 2014

HIPA 2(m)(i), 2(m)(ii), 2(b), 24(1), 25(1)(f), 27(2)(a), 27(2)(b), 27(4)(b)

Sunrise Regional Health Authority (Sunrise) was unable to locate the paper chart containing personal health information of one of its employees. The chart was specific to its Women’s Wellness Centre (WWC) location. The Commissioner found that the WWC did not have sufficient safeguards in place to protect the chart against reasonably anticipated loss as required by subsection 16(1)(b)(ii) of The Health Information Protection Act (HIPA). He recommended that Sunrise update its policies and procedures so they provide clear direction. He also recommended Sunrise introduce a new policy and procedure regarding employees accessing their own personal health information under the custody or control of the region.

Review Report 063-2014

November 20, 2014

LA FOIP 14(1)(c), 16(1)(a), 16(1)(b), 21(a), 23(1)(h)

The Applicant requested 101 pages of e-mails that related to her missing medical chart from Sunrise Regional Health Authority (Sunrise). Sunrise withheld the e-mails pursuant to subsections 14(1)(c), 16(1)(a), 16(1)(b), 21(a) and 23(1)(b) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). The Commissioner found that subsection 16(1)(b) of LA FOIP applied to certain portions. He also found that a portion constituted personal information pursuant to subsection 23(1)(h). He found that no other exemptions applied and recommended release of the rest of the record.

Review Report 045-2012

November 18, 2014

FOIP 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c)

The Applicant submitted an access to information request that had four parts to the Ministry of Health (Health). To the first part, Health responded by stating no records exist. To the second part, Health responded by referring the Applicant to Public Account documents. To the third part, Health responded by stating that records have been destroyed. To the fourth part, Health responded it was withholding records pursuant to subsections 19(1)(b) and 19(1)(c) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The Applicant appealed to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC). The IPC found that Health made a reasonable effort to search for records. The IPC also found that subsections 19(1)(b) and 19(1)(c) of FOIP did not apply. The IPC recommend that Health develop more effective records management practices and release the records it withheld pursuant to subsections 19(1)(b) and 19(1)(c) of FOIP. Health agreed.

Review Report 088-2014

November 17, 2014

FOIP 23(1)(a), 23(1)(b), 23(3)(l), FOIP Regulations 12(l)

In April 2014, an Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Financial and Consumer Affairs Authority (FCAA). The FCAA advised the Applicant that it was withholding the records in full pursuant to subsections 15(1)(b)(i), (c), (k), 17(1)(b)(i), 19(1)(b), (c), 23(3)(m) and section 29 of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The FCAA later replaced reliance on 23(3)(m) of FOIP with subsection 23(3)(l). The Applicant proceeded to request a review by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC). Upon review, the Commissioner found that section 61 of The Mortgage Brokerages and Mortgage Administrators Act prevailed over Part II of FOIP and therefore FOIP did not apply to the records subject to the review. Further, given this finding, there was no need to consider the remaining exemptions relied on by the FCAA. As FOIP was found not to apply to the records, no recommendations were made.

Review Report 069-2014

November 17, 2014

FOIP 27, 32(1)

The applicant requested a correction of her personal information on a Record of Employment (ROE) document issued by the Public Service Commission (PSC). She alleged that she had been working for the Government of Saskatchewan since 2000; however, in the “first day worked” field on the ROE, PSC marked January 6, 2007. PSC explained Service Canada requires that this field reflect the first day worked from the issuance of the last ROE. An ROE had been issued when the applicant changed positions within different ministries in early 2007. The Commissioner found that the applicant’s personal information was accurate pursuant to section 27 of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) and no change was required. Even though the applicant requested a change and not that a notation be made pursuant to subsection 32(1) of FOIP, PSC made a notation within its electronic filing system that the change was requested.

Investigation Report 105-2014

November 10, 2014

FOIP 27, 28, 29(2)(k), 33, LA FOIP 26, 32, HIPA 2(m), 19, 29(1), 52

In 2011, the Information and Privacy Commissioner’s (IPC) office learned of a new program in Saskatchewan known as the Hub. The Hub is part of Community Mobilization Prince Albert (CMPA) with participation from various agencies. The IPC undertook an investigation into the program early in 2013 to determine to what extent the Hub project conforms with the legislative requirements of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP), The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP), and The Health Information Protection Act (HIPA). The Commissioner found that though different participating agencies had developed and/or implemented various policies, procedures, agreements and forms, none had developed all of the necessary components of a privacy program to fully address varying roles and responsibilities. A number of recommendations were made including that all partner agencies need to work together to ensure that the need-to-know and data minimization principles are consistently applied and to develop a comprehensive plan to address existing deficiencies of its privacy program. The Commissioner further recommended that when there is a review of access and privacy legislation that consideration is given to bringing municipal police services under LA FOIP.

Investigation Report 088-2013

November 10, 2014

HIPA 2(m)(i), 2(m)(ii), 2(m)(iv), 2(m)(v), 2(u), 26

The Complainant made an access to information request to the Regina Qu’Appelle Regional Health Authority (RQRHA) for a record that lists who had viewed her personal health information stored electronically by RQRHA. She found that a doctor, who had no involvement in her care but with whom she had an acrimonious relationship, viewed her personal health information. The Commissioner found that The Health Information Protection Act did not authorize the doctor’s viewing of the Complainant’s personal health information. In the course of the investigation, RQRHA made changes to its approach to handling employee/practitioner snooping cases.

Review Report 062-2014

November 6, 2014

LA FOIP 21(b)

Sunrise Regional Health Authority (Sunrise) received an access to information request for a harassment report that involved the Applicant. Sunrise denied access to the record applying subsection 21(a) and (b) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). The Commissioner found that subsection 21(b) of LA FOIP to the record and recommended that Sunrise continue to withhold the record.

Review Report 019-2014

November 5, 2014

LA FOIP 15(1)(a), 15(1)(b)(i), 16(1)(b), 17(1)(d) 17(1)(e), 18(1)(c)(iii), 23(1)(f), 23(1)(h), 23(2)(b), 28(1)

In September 2013, an Applicant submitted an access to information request to the City of Saskatoon (City). The City advised the Applicant that it was withholding records in part pursuant to subsections 15(1)(a), (b), 16(1)(a), (b), (c), 17(1)(d), (e), 18(1)(b), (c)(iii), 21, and 28(1) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). The Applicant proceeded to request a review by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC). The City later dropped reliance on section 21 of LA FOIP. Upon review, the Commissioner found that the City appropriately applied subsections 15(1)(a), (b), 16(1)(b), 18(1)(b) and 28(1) of LA FOIP to some of the information in the record. Further, the Commissioner found that the City did not show that subsections 17(1)(d), (e), 18(1)(b), (c) and 28(1) of LA FOIP applied to other information in the record. The Commissioner recommended the City withhold the information found to qualify for exemption pursuant to subsections 15(1)(a), (b), 16(1)(b), 18(1)(b) and 28(1) of LA FOIP and release the remainder.

Review Report 070-2014

November 5, 2014

HIPA 2(m), 40(1)

In April 2014, an Applicant submitted a request to Financial & Consumer Affairs Authority (FCAA) to have her personal health information changed and/or removed from two FCAA records. The FCAA denied the Applicant’s request and instead made a notation on file pursuant to subsection 40(1)(b) of The Health Information Protection Act (HIPA). The Applicant requested a review by the Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC). The Commissioner found that the information accurately reflected the views and/or impressions of the author at the time the record was created and therefore did not qualify to be changed and or removed pursuant to subsection 40(1)(a) of HIPA. Given that the FCAA already indicated it made the notation on file, the Commissioner made no recommendations.

Review Report 057-2014

November 5, 2014

FOIP 2(1)(d)(i), 5

In April 2014, an Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Ministry of Social Services (MSS). MSS advised the Applicant that it was withholding records in part pursuant to subsections 17(1)(a), (b), (d) and 29(1) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The Applicant proceeded to request a review by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC). Upon review, the Applicant advised the OIPC that he was not interested in the records withheld. The Applicant asserted there were other records not provided by MSS. MSS agreed to conduct another search for responsive records and to provide details of its search efforts to the OIPC for review. The Commissioner found that MSS had conducted a reasonable search for responsive records. As the Commissioner was satisfied with MSS’ search efforts, there were no recommendations made.

Review Report 016-2014

October 24, 2014

FOIP 5, 17(1)(a)

In November 2013, an Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Ministry of Education (Education). Education advised the Applicant that it was withholding records in part pursuant to subsection 17(1)(a) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The Applicant proceeded to request a review by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC). In the request for review, the Applicant raised issue with Education withholding some information as non-responsive and the search conducted by Education. Upon review, the Commissioner found that Education had conducted a reasonable search for responsive records. Further, that some information withheld as non-responsive was responsive to the access request. He also found that some information was not responsive. Finally, the Commissioner found that Education appropriately applied subsection 17(1)(a) of FOIP to some of the information in the records. The Commissioner recommended release of the information found to be responsive to the access request and the information found not to qualify for exemption pursuant to subsection 17(1)(a) of FOIP and to withhold the remainder.

Review Report 040-2014

October 10, 2014

FOIP 17(1)(a), 18(1)(d)

In March 2014, an Applicant submitted an access to information request to SaskBuilds. SaskBuilds advised the Applicant that it was withholding portions of the record pursuant to subsections 17(1)(a), (b), (c), 18(1)(d) and (g) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The Applicant proceeded to request a review by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC). Upon review, the Commissioner found that SaskBuilds appropriately applied subsections 17(1)(a) and 18(1)(d) of FOIP to the record. The Commissioner recommended SaskBuilds continue to withhold the record.

Review Report 023-2014

October 10, 2014

FOIP 16(1)(a)

In January 2014, an Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Ministry of Justice (Corrections and Policing) (Justice). Justice advised the Applicant that it was withholding the record pursuant to subsections 16(1)(a), 17(1)(a), (d), 18(1)(b)(ii), (d),(e) and (h) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The Applicant proceeded to request a review by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC). Upon review, the Commissioner found that Justice appropriately applied subsection 16(1)(a) of FOIP to the record. The Commissioner recommended Justice continue to withhold the record.

Review Report 106-2013

October 10, 2014

16(1)(a)

The Applicant requested records from the University of Saskatchewan (U of S). The U of S denied access to the records in full pursuant to subsections 14(1)(d), 15(1)(b), 16(1)(a), (d), (e), 17(1)(d), (g) and 28(1) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). The Commissioner found that subsection 16(1)(a) of LA FOIP applied to the records and recommended they continue to be withheld.

Review Report 075-2012

October 8, 2014

FOIP 17(1)(b), 29(1)

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Financial and Consumer Affairs Authority (FCAA). FCAA released some information but withheld the rest, citing subsections 17(1)(b)(i) and 29(1) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) as reasons to withhold portions of the records. The Applicant appealed to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC). In the course of the review, the IPC found that subsection 17(1)(b)(i) of FOIP did not apply. FCAA agreed to release the portions of the records it withheld under this subsection of FOIP. The IPC found that FCAA could continue to withhold some information under subsection 29(1) of FOIP but recommended that FCAA release some of the information it originally withheld, including the Applicant’s own personal information.

Review Report 087-2013

October 6, 2014

LA FOIP 16(1)(a), 17(1)(d), 23(1)(b), 28(1)

The Applicant requested records from the City of Regina. The City responded to the Applicant providing redacted versions of the records citing subsections 16(1)(a), (c), (d), (e), 17(1)(d), (e), (f), (g), 18(1)(b) and (c) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). The Commissioner found that the City appropriately applied subsections 17(1)(d), 16(1)(a) and 28(1) to the records and recommended they continue to be withheld.

Review Report 124-2013

October 3, 2014

LA FOIP Regulations 5(2)(a), 5(3), 6(2)

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Sun Country Regional Health Authority (SCRHA). SCRHA issued a fee estimate pursuant to section 9 of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). The Applicant requested a review with the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) to determine if the fee estimate was reasonable. The IPC found that the fee estimate was reasonable and recommended that fee estimate remains the same.

Investigation Report LA-2014-001

September 10, 2014

LA FOIP 23(1)(b)

The Complainant sent a letter to the Reeve and council members of the Rural Municipality of Parkdale No. 498 (RM) where she sought leave from her position as the Administrator of the RM. A third party referenced and quoted the Complainant’s letter. The Complainant became concerned as to how the third party had a copy of her letter. The Commissioner found that a council member had disclosed the Complainant’s letter to a third party and that such disclose was not authorized by The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). He found that the RM has taken appropriate steps in addressing the issues in this case, including issuing an apology letter to the Complainant, adopting a policy on how to prevent privacy breaches, and providing training to the RM’s council members and employees.

Review Report F-2014-008

August 27, 2014

FOIP 2(1)(d)(ii), 5

The Applicant requested legal documents from SGI. SGI advised the applicant that it did not have records responsive to portions of the access request. The Applicant appealed SGI's assertion that portions of record did not exist to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC). The IPC found SGI had demonstrated that its search for records responsive to the Applicant’s access request was reasonable and adequate for purposes of FOIP and that no responsive records appear to exist.



Review Report F-2014-007

August 26, 2014

FOIP 5

In November 2013, an Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Ministry of Justice (Justice). Justice advised the Applicant that it did not have responsive records pursuant to subsection 7(2)(d) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) and that any records that would be responsive were the personal records of a government employee. The Applicant proceeded to request a review by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC). Upon review, the Commissioner found that Justice did not have possession or control of the records responsive to the access request and as a result, FOIP did not apply. As FOIP was found not to apply, the Commissioner made no recommendations.

Review Report LA-2014-004

August 21, 2014

LA FOIP 14(1)(d), 16(1)(d)

In March 2013, an Applicant submitted four access to information requests to the University of Regina (U of R). The U of R advised the Applicant that it was withholding the records responsive to all four access to information requests pursuant to subsections 14(1)(d) and 16(1)(d) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). The Applicant proceeded to request a review by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) on all four matters. Upon review, the Commissioner found that the U of R did not establish that subsection 14(1)(d) of LA FOIP applied to the record. Further, the Commissioner found that the U of R did not establish that subsection 16(1)(d) of LA FOIP applied to a portion of the record. However, the Commissioner found that subsection 16(1)(d) of LA FOIP applied to the remainder of the record. The Commissioner recommended the U of R continue to withhold the portion of the record found to qualify for subsection 16(1)(d) of LA FOIP and release the remainder of the record after redacting the personal information of other individuals.

Review Report F-2014-006

August 13, 2014

FOIP 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c), 22(a), 22(b)

In March 2013, the Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Ministry of Environment (Environment) for access to a record in the possession and control of Environment that potentially contained third party business information. Environment provided notification to the Third Party under section 34 of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) and invited the Third Party to provide its consent to release the records or arguments to support withholding the records in question. The Third Party did not provide its consent but instead argued that subsections 19(1)(c), 22(a) and (b) of FOIP applied to the record and they should therefore be withheld. Environment concluded that release of the records was in the public interest as it related to public health, public safety and/or the protection of the environment and this public interest outweighed any harms proposed by the Third Party pursuant to subsection 19(3) of FOIP. Environment advised the Third Party of its decision and its intention to release the record. The Third Party proceeded to submit a request for review to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The Commissioner found that Environment did not show that subsection 19(1)(b) of FOIP applied to the record. Further, the Commissioner found that the Third Party did not show that the disclosure of the information in the record could reasonably be expected to result in the harms proposed. As such, the Commissioner found that subsection 19(1)(c) of FOIP did not apply. In addition, as subsections 19(1)(b) and (c) of FOIP were found not to apply there was no need to consider the application of subsection 19(3) of FOIP. Finally, the Commissioner found that authority to apply subsections 22(a) and (b) rested with the “head” of Environment and not with the Third Party. As Environment did not apply subsections 22(a) and (b) of FOIP to the record, the Commissioner did not consider them. The Commissioner recommended that Environment release the record in full to the Applicant.

Review Report F-2014-005

August 12, 2014

FOIP 24(1), 29(1)

In September 2012, the Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Ministry of Education (Education) for access to records. Education released portions of the record to the Applicant and withheld the remainder citing subsection 29(1) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The Applicant proceeded to submit a request for review to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The Commissioner found that Education appropriately applied subsection 29(1) of FOIP to some information in the record as it was the personal information of individuals other than the Applicant. Further, the Commissioner found that Education did not appropriately apply subsection 29(1) of FOIP to other information in the record as it was not personal information as defined under subsection 24(1) of FOIP. The Commissioner recommended Education continue to withhold the information found to be personal information in the record and release the remainder.

Review Report LA-2014-003

August 6, 2014

LA FOIP 14(1)(d), 17(1)(d), 17(1)(e), 18(1)(c), 21(b)

In February 2013, an Applicant submitted an access to information request to the City of Regina (City). The City advised the Applicant that it was withholding the records pursuant to subsections 14(1)(d), 17(1)(d), (e), 18(1)(b), (c), 21(a) and (b) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). However, the City later dropped reliance on subsection 21(a) of LA FOIP. The Applicant proceeded to request a review by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC). Upon review, the Commissioner found that the City appropriately applied subsection 21(b) of LA FOIP to a portion of the record. As a result, the Commissioner did not have to consider subsection 18(1)(b) of LA FOIP. Further, the Commissioner found that the City did not establish that subsections 14(1)(d), 17(1)(d), (e), 18(1)(c) and 21(b) of LA FOIP applied to the remaining portions of the record. The Commissioner recommended the City continue to withhold the portion of the record found to qualify for exemption under subsection 21(b) of LA FOIP and release the remainder.

Review Report F-2014-004

August 1, 2014

FOIP 32(1)(a), 24(1)(b), 24(1)(h), 24(1)(k)

In March 2013, an Applicant submitted a request to Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI) to have his personal information changed and/or removed from his claim file. SGI denied the Applicant’s request and instead made a notation on the file pursuant to subsection 32(1)(b) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The Applicant requested a review by the Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC). The Commissioner found that some of the information was opinion material and as such would not qualify under subsection 32(1)(a) of FOIP to be changed or removed. Further, the Commissioner found that the remainder of the information appeared to accurately reflect the views and/or impressions of the author at the time the record was created and therefore did not qualify to be changed or removed pursuant to subsection 32(1)(a) of FOIP. Finally, the Commissioner found that SGI acted reasonably in refusing to grant the request and instead placed the notation on file. Given that SGI already indicated it made the notation in question, the Commissioner made no recommendations arising out of this review.

Review Report F-2014-003

July 25, 2014

FOIP 12(1)(a), 17(1)(b), 19(1)(b), 22(b), 22(c)

In December 2011, an Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Ministry of Justice (Justice). Justice withheld records, citing subsections 13(1)(b), 14, 15(1)(d), 16(1)(a), (d), 17(1)(a), (b), (c), 19(1)(b), 22(a), (b) and (c) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The Applicant requested a review with the Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC). In addition to reviewing the sections relied on to withhold the records, the Applicant requested the Commissioner review whether Justice’s 30 day extension was in compliance with subsection 12(1)(a) of FOIP. In its submission to the OIPC, Justice stated it was no longer relying on subsection 19(1)(b) of FOIP. The Commissioner found that Justice’s 30 day extension was in accordance with subsection 12(1)(a) of FOIP. The Commissioner also found that subsections 22(b), (c) and 17(1)(b)(i) of FOIP applied to the records. Therefore, the Commissioner recommended that Justice continue to withhold the records in question.

Review Report LA-2014-002

April 28, 2014

LA FOIP 2(f)(xiii), 16(3), 23(1), 23(2), 23(2)(b), 28(1)

An Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Saskatoon Regional Health Authority (SRHA). Initially, SRHA provided the responsive records in part but withheld information pursuant to sections 16(1)(a), 16(1)(b), 16(1)(c), 16(1)(d), 16(3), 18(1)(c)(i), 18(1)(c)(ii), 18(1)(c)(iii) and 28(1) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). The Applicant requested a review by the Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC). The OIPC provided notification to both the Applicant and SRHA that it would be undertaking a review. In response, SRHA advised the OIPC that it had decided to release further information to the Applicant and that it was only relying on section 28(1) of LA FOIP to withhold the remaining information. The Commissioner found that SRHA properly withheld some portions of the responsive records under section 28(1) of LA FOIP but improperly withheld other portions. She recommended that SRHA release the portions of the withheld records she found to be improperly withheld under section 28(1) of LA FOIP.

Investigation Report F-2014-002

March 28, 2014

FOIP 2(1)(d)(ii), 24(1)(a), 24(1)(b), 24(1)(j), 24(1)(k)(i), 25; HIPA 2(m)(i), 2(m)(ii), 2(t)(i), 16, 23, 24

The Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) received a breach of privacy complaint that related to the collection and disclosure of the Complainant’s personal information and personal health information by the Saskatchewan Financial Services Commission (SFSC). During the course of the investigation, the SFSC was renamed the Financial and Consumer Affairs Authority of Saskatchewan. The Complainant alleged that the SFSC inappropriately collected and disclosed her personal information and personal health information during its Securities Division’s investigation into her business dealings. The Commissioner found that the SFSC failed to demonstrate that it had authority to collect and disclose the Complainant’s personal information and personal health information under The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) and The Health Information Protection Act (HIPA) respectively. Further, she found that the SFSC violated the data minimization principle. Finally, the Commissioner found that the SFSC failed to sufficiently safeguard the Complainant’s personal information and personal health information as was lacking appropriate written policies and procedures to help ensure compliance with FOIP and HIPA when undertaking such investigations. The Commissioner recommended that the SFSC develop appropriate written policies and procedures to achieve compliance with FOIP and HIPA in the course of its investigative activities.

Review Report F-2014-002

March 25, 2014

FOIP 2(1)(d)(ii), 2(1)(j), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(e), 19(1)(f), 19(2), 24(1), 29(1); FOIP Regs Part I of the Appendix

In March 2011, an Applicant submitted an access to information request to Saskatchewan Crop Insurance Corporation (SCIC) for records about the number of cultivated and seeded acres claimed by a third party. SCIC withheld all the records, citing sections 15(1)(b)(i), 15(1)(f) and 19(1)(b) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The Applicant requested a review with the Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC). In its submission to the OIPC, SCIC stated it was no longer relying on the exemptions it raised in its response to the Applicant, but that it would rely on section 29(1) of FOIP to withhold all of the information in question. Further, toward the end of the review, it raised sections 19(1)(e) and 19(1)(f) of FOIP to withhold the information in question. The Commissioner found that section 29(1) of FOIP was not applicable. Further, the Commissioner found that neither sections 19(1)(e) nor 19(1)(f) of FOIP applied. However, since the information appeared to be third party business information, the OIPC also considered the applicability of section 19(1)(b) of FOIP. The Commissioner found that section 19(1)(b) of FOIP did apply. Therefore, the Commissioner recommended that SCIC continue to withhold the information in question.

Review Report 110-2014

February 13, 2014

FOIP 7(2), 12(1)

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Ministry of Health (Health). She did not receive a response within the legislated timelines so she appealed to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC). Eventually, she did receive a response. The Applicant also dissatisfied with the search efforts of Health. The IPC found that Health did not respond within the legislated timelines. Further, it found that Health did not make a reasonable effort to search for records but that it was taking appropriate steps to address its deficiencies. The IPC recommended that Health continue to make changes to its processes so it can achieve timelier responses and more comprehensive searches for records.

Review Report F-2014-001

January 29, 2014

FOIP 2(1)(d)(ii), 8, 13(1)(a), 14(1)(a), 15(1)(b)(i), 15(1)(c), 15(1)(e), 15(1)(f), 15(1)(k), 15(1)(i), 15(2), 17(1)(a), 17(1)(b), 18(1)(f), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c), 22(a), 22(b), 22(c), 23(1), 23(2), 23(3)(h), 24, 24(1)(e), 24(1)(k)(i), 29(1), 52, 61; FOIP Regs Appendix

The Applicant made an access to information request to Saskatchewan Financial Services Commission (SFSC) requesting all information associated with the Applicant held by the SFSC. During the course of the review, the SFSC was renamed the Financial and Consumer Affairs Authority of Saskatchewan. In response to the Applicant’s access request, the SFSC withheld in part portions of the responsive record citing up to 26 different exemptions under The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). As the responsive record involved boxes of records, the Commissioner’s review dealt with a representative sample only. During the course of the review, the Commissioner found that the SFSC failed to meet the burden of proof in establishing which exemptions applied to a number of records and that it failed to meet its obligations under section 8 of FOIP. He also found that the SFSC did not appropriately exercise its discretion by releasing as much of the record as possible, even where a discretionary exemption was found to apply by the SFSC. The Commissioner also found the SFSC failed to meet its obligations to third parties due to its unreasonable delay in notifying third parties affected by the review. The Commissioner further found that the SFSC failed to meet the burden of proof in demonstrating that sections 14(1)(a), 15(1)(b)(i), 15(1)(e), 15(1)(f), 15(1)(i) and 18(1)(f) of FOIP applied to some of the records. In addition, he found that the SFSC did not appropriately apply sections 13(1)(a), 15(1)(c), 17(1)(a), 17(1)(b), 22(a), 22(b), 22(c) and 29(1) of FOIP to portions of the record. The Commissioner did find that the SFSC appropriately applied sections 15(1)(k), 17(1)(a), 18(1)(f), 22(a), 22(b), 23(3)(h) and 29(1) of FOIP to other portions of the record. The Commissioner recommended the SFSC appropriately exercise its discretion and consider releasing as much of the record as possible. Further, he recommended that the SFSC release those records or portions of records found not to qualify for any of theexemptions cited by the SFSC. In addition, he recommended that the SFSC continue to withhold those records or portions of records found to qualify under one of the exemptions cited by the SFSC. Finally, the Commissioner recommended that the SFSC apply the analysis, findings and recommendations in this Review Report to the larger responsive record.

Review Report 101-2014

January 26, 2014

FOIP 7(2)(e)

In August 2013, an Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Ministry of Justice (Corrections & Policing) (Justice). Justice advised the Applicant that it was denying access pursuant to subsection 7(2)(e) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) as the record requested did not exist. Upon review, the Commissioner found that Justice had conducted a reasonable search for the responsive record. As the Commissioner was satisfied with Justice’s search efforts, there were no recommendations made.

Review Report 111-2013

January 23, 2014

FOIP 19(1)(b)

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Ministry of Health (Health). Health withheld portions of the responsive record pursuant to subsection 19(1)(b) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The Applicant appealed to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC). The IPC found that subsection 19(1)(b) of FOIP did not apply and recommended release of the responsive record in its entirety.

Review Report LA-2014-001

January 10, 2014

LA FOIP 2(f)(i), 7, 7(2), 7(3), 12, 50, 56(3)

The Applicant made a request to the Village of Killaly (the Village) for records relating to a non-compliant septic tank. The Village did not respond to the request within the 30 day timeframe specified by section 7 of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). The Applicant was not satisfied with the response he finally did receive from the Village and requested a review by the Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC). The Village was requested to provide a new compliant section 7 response to the Applicant and failed to do so. The matter was treated as an expedited review, as per the OIPC’s procedure, and the matter was escalated to the Commissioner’s attention. He again requested that the Village provide the Applicant with a compliant section 7 response. Again, the Village failed to do so. The Commissioner recommended that the Village issue a compliant section 7 response to the Applicant within 30 days of issuance of this Review Report. He also recommended that the Minister of Justice and Attorney-General consider prosecution pursuant to section 56(3) of LA FOIP in respect to the refusal of the Village to comply with a lawful requirement of the Commissioner.

Investigation Report H-2014-001

January 9, 2014

FOIP 2(1)(d); FOIP Regs 3, Part I of the Appendix; HIPA 2(h), 2(j), 2(m), 2(t)(ii), 2(t)(xii)(A), 16, 18, 23(2), 27(1)

The Office’s second Investigation Report regarding misdirected faxes takes a systematic approach in examining several privacy breaches. In total, this investigation captures 10 different trustees, including 8 regional health authorities, 20 separate files and approximately 1000 affected patients. With a couple of exceptions, all of these breaches involve not a stand-alone fax machine but rather faxing features with electronic medical records and the electronic health record. Two common themes were consistent in these breaches: challenges with keeping fax information up-to-date and a lack of formal mechanisms to ensure that appropriate safeguards and accountability mechanisms are integrated in the RIS setup. The Commissioner made several recommendations with respect to faxing and safeguards.

Investigation Report F-2014-001

January 3, 2014

FOIP 24(1)(k)(i), 24(1.1), 29(2)(i)(i); HIPA 4(4)(h), 4(6)

The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner received a formal complaint alleging that Saskatchewan Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) disclosed too much of the Complainant’s personal information in its “Decision of the Appeals Department” letter to her employer. The letter contained personal information regarding medical symptoms and diagnoses unrelated to her WCB claim such as pneumonia and alcohol dependence syndrome. The Commissioner found that The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) and not The Health Information Protection Act applied in this case. He found that WCB did not rely on any section of FOIP when making the disclosure which also violated the ‘data minimization’ and ‘need-to-know’ principles. He also found that WCB did not follow its own procedures in this case. WCB refused to acknowledge the unauthorized disclosure and refused to take steps to prevent further similar disclosures.

2013

Review Report 086-2013

November 10, 2014



The Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Ministry of Government Relations (Government Relations). Government Relations withheld the responsive records in their entirety, citing subsections 16(1)(a) and 17(1)(f)(i) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The Applicant appealed to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC). In the course of the review, Government Relations released portions of the responsive records but continued to withhold the remainder pursuant to subsection 16(1) of FOIP. The IPC found that the records at issue were exempt from release pursuant to subsection 16(1)(d). In spite of the finding, though, the IPC recommended that Government Relations consider releasing some portions of the records since the matter was already revealed through an Order in Council and published on the Government of Saskatchewan website.

Review Report F-2013-007

December 31, 2013

FOIP 2(1)(d), 17(1)(b)(i), 18(1)(f), 22(a), 24, 24(1)(d), 24(1)(e), 24(1)(k)(i), 29(1), 61; HIPA 2(t)(i), 2(m), 4(4)(b), 27(1)

The Applicant made an access to information request to Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI) requesting all information from his SGI claim file following a motor vehicle accident. SGI withheld, in part, portions of the responsive record pursuant to sections 17(1)(b)(i), 18(1)(f), 22(a) and 29(1) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). During the course of the review, the Commissioner found significant delay occurred in part due to poor preparation by SGI of the record, Index of Records and submission required by the Commissioner’s office to conduct a proper review. Further, the Commissioner found this contributed to a finding that SGI did not meet the burden of proof pursuant to section 61 of FOIP in most cases. The Commissioner found that SGI could apply section 17(1)(b)(i) of FOIP to some of the records in question but did not appropriately apply this section to others. He further found that SGI appropriately applied sections 22(a) and 29(1) of FOIP to some of the records but did not appropriately apply these sections to other records or portions of records in question. He also found that SGI did not meet the burden of proof in establishing that section 18(1)(f) of FOIP applied to some of the records. Finally, he found that SGI failed to identify personal health information of a third party subject to The Health Information Protection Act (HIPA) and recommended that SGI withhold the personal health information pursuant to section 27(1) of HIPA. The Commissioner recommended that SGI release those records or portions of records found not to qualify for exemption under sections 17(1)(b)(i), 18(1)(f), 22(a) and 29(1) of FOIP.

Review Report F-2013-006

December 23, 2013

FOIP 2(1)(d)(ii), 7, 7(1), 7(2), 7(2)(d), 24, 24(1)(a), 24(1)(b), 24(1)(d), 24(1)(e), 24(1)(j), 29(1), 46(3)(a)

The Applicant made an access to information request to Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI) requesting information pertaining to himself. SGI withheld portions of one page identified by SGI as the responsive record pursuant to section 29(1) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). During the course the review, SGI discovered approximately 825 additional pages of responsive records and applied six new discretionary exemptions not previously identified to the Applicant. The Commissioner found that SGI did not meet its obligations under section 7(2) of FOIP. The Commissioner recommended that SGI release those records withheld under the late raised discretionary exemptions. Finally, the Commissioner found that SGI properly applied section 29(1) to some portions of the record that constituted personal information of individuals who were not the Applicant and he recommended that this information continue to be withheld. Finally, the Commissioner found that SGI did not properly apply section 29(1) of FOIP to a portion of the record as it did not constitute personal information pursuant to section 24(1) of FOIP. He recommended this information be released to the Applicant.

Investigation Report LA-2013-003

December 16, 2013

LA FOIP 2(f)(viii), 23(1), 23(1)(a), 23(1)(k), 27(a), 28(2)(a), 28(2)(r), 28(2)(p),

The Commissioner investigated two incidents of alleged unauthorized uses and disclosures of personal information of two students by the Board of Education of Horizon School Division #205 (Horizon). He found that the data elements involved in both incidents constituted personal information pursuant to section 23(1) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). He found that both disclosures by Horizon were not authorized by section 28 of LA FOIP. The Commissioner did find, however, that in one case an internal use of the personal information was authorized by section 27(a) of LA FOIP and that disclosure of one of the student’s cumulative files to another school division was authorized by section 28(2)(p) of LA FOIP. Finally, the Commissioner found that a lack of training for staff and written policies and procedures addressing physical and administrative safeguards were the root causes of the breaches. Horizon made no attempt to prevent future occurrences.

Review Report F-2013-004

November 21, 2013

FOIIP 2(1)(d)(i), 7(2), 29(1); HIPA 2(t)(i), 27(1)

An Applicant made an access to information request to the former Ministry of Advanced Education, Employment and Labour (AEEL) wherein AEEL withheld all the records, citing sections 15(1)(a) and 15(1)(c) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The Applicant requested a review by the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC). A government reorganization resulted in the Ministry of Labour Relations and Workplace Safety (LRWS) assuming responsibility for the file. LRWS decided it would no longer withhold all the records under sections 15(1)(a) and 15(1)(c) of FOIP because the subject of the responsive records was no longer a matter before the courts. However, it sent a fee estimate letter to the Applicant advising the Applicant that it may rely on sections 16, 17, 18, 19 and 29 of FOIP and sections 5, 27 and 30 of The Health Information Protection Act (HIPA) to withhold some of the information in question. LRWS argued that a fee estimate letter was not issued originally by AEEL because its response was pursuant to section 7(2)(d) whereas section 9(1) of FOIP only allows a fee estimate letter to be issued with a section 7(2)(a) response. The Commissioner found that there is no provision in FOIP that enables a public body to issue a new section 7 response 31 months after it receives an access request. The OIPC recommended that LRWS rescind the fee estimate letter and sever information pursuant to section 29(1) of FOIP and section 27(1) of HIPA. LRWS complied with the recommendations but then also applied yet another discretionary exemption, section 22 of FOIP, to withhold information. The Commissioner recommended that LRWS release the information it withheld pursuant to section 22 of FOIP.

Review Report F-2013-005

November 19, 2013

FOIP 2(1)(d)(i), 7(2), 11, 11(2)(a), 61

In December 2011, an Applicant submitted two access to information requests, one to the Ministry of Finance (Finance) and the other to the Ministry of Health (Health). Finance transferred its access to information request to Health. Health then transferred both requests to the Ministry of Justice (Justice), stating that Justice held the responsive records for litigation purposes. However, Health admitted that there were responsive records “contained” within its Ministry. The Commissioner found that Health did not demonstrate that Justice had a “greater interest” in the records pursuant to section 11(2) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The Commissioner also found that Health improperly transferred Finance’s request to Justice. Further, he found that Health should have processed the responsive records it had in its possession in response to the Applicant’s request. The Commissioner recommended that Health complete a search for additional records it may have in its possession and process those records in response to the Applicant’s request.

Review Report F-2013-003

November 19, 2013

FOIP 2(1)(d)(i), 2(1)(j), 19(1), 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c), 19(1)(e), 19(1)(f), 34, 36, 52, 53

The Applicant requested certain records from the Ministry of Agriculture (the Ministry). The Ministry released some responsive records and withheld others pursuant to sections 17(1)(a), 17(1)(b), 18(1)(a), 18(1)(d), 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c), 19(1)(e) and 19(1)(f) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). During the review, the Ministry was persuaded to release records withheld pursuant to sections 17(1)(a), 17(1)(b), 18(1)(a) and 18(1)(d) of FOIP but continued to withhold records based on the third party exemptions. The Commissioner found that the Ministry did not meet the burden of proof to demonstrate sections 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c), 19(1)(e) and 19(1)(f) of FOIP applied to the record as it did not identify the relevant third parties or meet other tests required of these exemptions. The Commissioner recommended release of the remaining record.

Review Report LA-2013-004

November 18, 2013

LA FOIP 2(f)(i), 7, 50, 56(3)

This Review Report relates to two reviews commenced by the Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) on or about June 24, 2013. The Northern Village of Pinehouse (the Village) received two formal access to information requests from the Applicant dated April 2, 2013 and April 16, 2013 respectively. The requests were detailed, clear and conformed to the prescribed form for making an access to information request. By a letter dated June 6, 2013, the Village responded to those access requests. The Village referred the Applicant to the website of a third party and represented that certain other records sought by the Applicant were on the Village’s website. However, the representations by the Village to the Applicant were apparently inaccurate. On June 24, 2013, the OIPC wrote to the Mayor as “head” of the Village for purposes of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act advising that the response of the Village was inadequate. When no adequate response was forthcoming, the matter was then escalated to the Commissioner, consistent with this office’s procedure for an expedited review. No remedial action was taken. On September 9, 2013, the Commissioner wrote to the Mayor advising that he would be issuing a Review Report addressing the procedural defect.

Investigation Report LA-2013-002

November 6, 2013

LA FOIP 2(f)(viii), 23(1), 23(1)(k), 23(2)(a), 25(2), 27(a), 50; LA FOIP Regs 11

A Union representing staff members of the Board of Education of the Saskatoon School Division No. 13 (the Division) made a complaint regarding the use of employee photographs in the internal e-mail system. Employees were not advised of the anticipated use of the photographs at the time of collection. The Commissioner found that the Division did not identify the primary purpose for the collection of employee photographs. It, therefore, is not able to rely on section 27(a) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). The use of the photographs was not consistent with the alleged primary purpose for collection. The Division did not identify any other authority for the use of the photographs. The Division failed to clarify whether participation with respect to the use of photographs in the e-mail system was mandatory. Further, it did not demonstrate that this practice respected the ‘need-to-know’ or ‘data minimization’ principles or that it had adequate safeguards in place to protect against unauthorized use or disclosure. The Commissioner recommended suspension of the practice until the Division could address these issues through a Privacy Impact Assessment. He also requested that the Division provide him with a copy of any written delegation from the head pursuant to section 50 of LA FOIP.

Review Report F-2013-002

October 29, 2013

FOIP 7, 7(2)(d), 23(3)(k)

Two Applicants, one an employee of the Saskatchewan Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB), made requests to WCB for information related to their individual workers’ compensation claims. WCB indicated, in its responses to the Applicants, that records were being withheld pursuant to various exemptions found in Part III of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The Applicants requested a review of these decisions and the Commissioner asked WCB for submissions in support of its reliance on the exemptions. In response, WCB indicated that FOIP did not apply to the records pursuant to section 23(3)(k) of FOIP.
The Commissioner’s position, taken since 2003, is that section 23 of FOIP is a paramountcy provision and not an exclusion from FOIP. The Commissioner has taken the view that section 23 of FOIP is not applicable since although there may appear to be a conflict between sections 171 to 171.2 of The Workers’ Compensation Act, 1979 (the WCA) and Parts II and III of FOIP, it is possible to read the provisions together so they are complementary and not adverse. Since one can comply with the WCA provisions without violating the FOIP provision for access to information, there is no genuine conflict and FOIP prevails.
The Commissioner also found that section 23(3)(k) of FOIP would not apply to responsive records found in the employee file held by WCB. He found that WCB did not comply with section 7 of FOIP and did not meet the duty to assist by not identifying its position on section 23(3)(k) of FOIP to the Applicants. As WCB did not provide representation on the exemptions identified in the section 7 responses to the Applicants, he found that WCB did not meet the burden of proof in demonstrating their applicability. Finally, the Commissioner found WCB had not demonstrated it undertook an adequate search for records.

Review Report F-2013-001

October 29, 2013

FOIP 5, 7, 7(2), 7(2)(b), 7(2)(f), 7(4), 24(1), 46(4)(b), 54; HIPA 2(m), 12, 32, 35, 36

The Applicant, an employee of the Saskatchewan Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB), made a request to WCB for records pertaining to her employment and specifically an incident that occurred at work. WCB responded by providing the Applicant with certain responsive records. The Applicant made a Request for Review claiming there should be more responsive material. In the course of the review, WCB was asked for details of its search efforts and information regarding specific records as clarified by the Applicant. In response, WCB indicated that it would not confirm or deny the existence of such records, pursuant to section 7(2)(f) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) and any records could be withheld pursuant to sections 17(1)(a) and 17(1)(b) of FOIP. The Commissioner informed WCB that it could only rely on section 7(2)(f) of FOIP if it had done so when it issued its section 7 response to the Applicant; it failed to do so. The Commissioner asked that WCB provide copies of any responsive records to this office. WCB then argued that the responsive material was not captured by the Applicant’s original request and refused to provide copies of the record to our office. The Commissioner suggested that he could issue a subpoena duce tecum pursuant to section 54 of FOIP. WCB then provided further material to the Commissioner. The Commissioner found that WCB did not meet the implied duty to assist when responding to the Applicant. He recommended WCB provide the Applicant with copies of all responsive material.

Review Report H-2013-001

October 22, 2013

HIPA 2(m), 2(t), 2(t)(ii), 3(2)(b), 12, 27(2)(c), 27(4)(e)(ii), 56(a), 56(f)

The Applicant requested that the Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner undertake a review when the Saskatoon Regional Health Authority (SRHA) refused to release her deceased father’s personal health information to her. The Commissioner found that the Applicant was not a surrogate of her deceased father pursuant to section 56 of The Health Information Protection Act (HIPA). Therefore, she did not have a right of access to her deceased father’s personal health information pursuant to Part V of HIPA. Further, the Commissioner found that SRHA exercised its discretion properly in refusing to disclose the deceased father’s personal health information pursuant to section 27(4)(e) of HIPA.

Investigation Report H-2013-003

September 13, 2013

HIPA 2(m), 2(q), 2(t)(xii)(A), 9, 16, 17(2)(b), 23(2)

As a result of an anonymous call, the Commissioner found personal health information in the custody or control of Dr. Diana Monea near a dumpster located beside Lakewood Eye Health Centre, Dr. Monea’s clinic. Although, it was alleged that the personal health information was planted by a former employee, upon investigation, the Commissioner concluded that Dr. Monea did not have adequate safeguards to protect the personal health information. In particular, Dr. Monea’s clinic did not have adequate policies and procedures or training for employees to achieve compliance with section 16 of The Health Information Protection Act (HIPA). Further, the clinic’s procedure to dispose of personal health information was not compliant with section 17(2)(b) of HIPA and did not respect the ‘need-to-know’ or ‘data minimization’ principles inherent in section 23(2) of HIPA. Dr. Monea disagreed with the Commissioner’s conclusions and refused to develop adequate policies and procedures or change the clinic’s disposition procedures.

Investigation Report F-2013-003

September 3, 2013

FOIP 2(1)(d)(i), 24(1)(e), 24(1)(k), 25; FOIP Regs 17(1)(a); HIPA 16

The Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) received an email from the Chief Privacy Officer at Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI) in September 2010 stating that an employee of another government institution, the Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure (MHI), had “incorrectly accessed” SGI’s database. According to MHI’s internal Privacy Breach Report, an employee of MHI was travelling to work when an incident occurred between him and another driver. After the incident, the MHI employee used his user privileges to view the other driver’s personal information on the SGI database and used the information to contact the other driver. MHI’s Privacy Officer was notified of the privacy breach. Instead of MHI providing breach notification, SGI notified and apologized to the affected individual. The Commissioner found that it should have been MHI that took responsibility for the privacy breach. The Commissioner made recommendations to MHI on how to prevent similar privacy breaches from occurring again in the future, including auditing its employees’ use of the SGI database.

Investigation Report F-2013-002

September 3, 2013

FOIP 24(1)(k), 25, 26; FOIP Regs 18; HIPA 4(4)(b), 4(6)

The Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) received a formal breach of privacy complaint that related to the collection of personal information and personal health information of a claimant (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) by Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI) under The Automobile Accident Insurance Act (AAIA). The Complainant alleged this collection was excessive. SGI took the position that the OIPC had no authority to investigate these matters since neither The Health Information Protection Act (HIPA) Parts II, IV and V, nor The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) applied to the Complainant’s personal information and personal health information as it related to Part VIII of AAIA. The Commissioner considered representations from SGI and, consistent with past Reports issued by the Commissioner, concluded that there is no evidence that the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan would have intended to create such a gap in legislated privacy protection and that, in fact, there is no such gap as alleged by SGI. The Commissioner, however, recommended that the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan amend the appropriate legislation to clarify the rules that will apply to the personal information collected, used and disclosed by SGI in its activities under AAIA and the role of the OIPC in overseeing SGI’s statutory responsibilities under FOIP and HIPA. He also recommended that SGI provide an update on the recommendations he made in his Investigation Report F-2010-001, as those recommendations would be similar to the ones made in this case.

Review Report LA-2013-003

August 29, 2013

LA FOIP 2(f)(xii), 2(f)(xiii), 3(1)(a), 3(1)(b), 8, 13(2), 16(1)(a), 16(1)(b), 23(1), 23(1)(e), 23(1)(f), 23(1)(k), 23(2), 23(2)(b), 28(1); HIPA 2(m), 2(t)(ii), 3(2)(a), 27(1), 38(2)

The Applicant submitted an access to information request to Saskatoon Regional Health Authority (SRHA). The request was for the submissions by members of the public presented to the Site Validation Panel. The Site Validation Panel was made up of members from various organizations, including SRHA, and from the public. It was set up to put forth a recommendation about the location of the Children’s Hospital of Saskatchewan. SRHA withheld the majority of the information in the responsive records under sections 13(2), 16(1)(a), 16(1)(b), and 28(1) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). The Commissioner undertook a review on the request of the Applicant. He found that some of the records contained personal information as defined by section 23(1) of LA FOIP. Further, he found that some of the records contained personal health information as defined by section 2(m) of The Health Information Protection Act. He recommended that such records, once sufficiently de-identified, should be disclosed and not withheld under section 28(1) of LA FOIP. However, he found that other information was provided by those employed by SRHA in the course of their employment duties. He found that such information should be released and not withheld under sections 16(1)(a), 16(1)(b), and/or 28(1) of LA FOIP. Further, he found that section 13(2) of LA FOIP did not apply to a letter from the University of Saskatchewan to the Site Validation Panel. Finally, he found that SRHA did not exercise its discretion properly when applying sections 13(2), 16(1)(a) and 16(1)(b) of LA FOIP.

Investigation Report F-2013-001

August 28, 2013

FOIP 5, 28, 29, 31(1), 32; HIPA 16

In 2009, a skills survey was distributed to Government of Saskatchewan employees. The Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner received a letter from staff of a government institution outlining concerns over how the personal information collected from the skills survey would be stored in the United States of America (USA) and therefore subject to the United and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT Act). The letter also indicated that the Public Service Commission (PSC) Careers website, that lists job postings for the Government of Saskatchewan, is also hosted in the USA. The Commissioner undertook an investigation pursuant to section 33 of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). He found that PSC had insufficient safeguards to protect personal information it collected through the skills survey and the PSC’s Careers website. The Commissioner recommended that: (1) PSC clearly determine and document its own security standards and practices; (2) that PSC make amendments to its contract between it and its service provider; (3) that PSC undertake a privacy impact assessment to ensure it is in full compliance with FOIP and The Health Information Protection Act. He also recommended that PSC provide clear notification to all employees and job applicants that, without an explicit duty to protect provision in FOIP, there is inadequate protection of personal information and personal health information when it is released to a private contractor.

Investigation Report LA-2013-001

April 16, 2013

LA FOIP 2(f)(xiii), 23(1)(k), 26, 28(2)(a), 28(2)(i)(i); HIPA 2(m)(i), 2(t)(ii), 16, 19, 25(3), 27(4)(l)

The Complainant, an employee of Providence Place For Holistic Health Incorporated (Providence), discovered that her employer had disclosed her personal information and personal health information to an external party. The Commissioner found that Providence did not have the authority to disclose the information in the circumstances and that it had failed to take adequate steps to ensure the accuracy of the information prior to the disclosure. Further, due to Providence’s lack of an appropriate policy and procedure to handle disclosure of personal information and personal health information to external parties, it failed to adequately protect its employees’ privacy. The Commissioner recommended that Providence provide an apology letter to the Complainant for the breach of her privacy and that it develop appropriate policies and procedures tailored to its unique and specific needs.

Investigation Report H-2013-002

February 26, 2013

HIPA 2(j), 2(m), 2(t)(ii), 16, 17(2)(b), 18(1)

In May 2010, the media alerted the Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) to seventeen addressograph cards found strewn about the ground near two facilities of a document destruction company in Regina, fifteen of which were later to be found belonging to the Regina Qu’Appelle Regional Health Authority (RQRHA). The addressograph cards were apparently found by a member of the public who contacted the Regina Police Service. The Commissioner undertook an investigation on an own motion basis after RQRHA informed his office of details of the breach. Even though the displacement of the addressograph cards was the result of actions by an employee of the document destruction company, the Commissioner found that RQRHA was responsible for the actions of its Information Management Service Provider. The Commissioner found that RQRHA had inadequate safeguards in place to ensure the proper destruction of the addressograph cards in question. Therefore, he recommended that RQRHA supplement and formalize its written procedure in regards to the disposal of records containing personal health information and that RQRHA conduct regular and ongoing audits of the document destruction company to help prevent a similar future occurrence.

Review Report LA-2013-002

February 23, 2013

LA FOIP 2(f)(i). 2(k), 18(1)(b), 18(1)(c), 18(3), 23(1), 28(1)

The Applicant made two requests under The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP) for access to records in the possession of the City of Regina (City) that potentially contained third party business information. The City provided notification to the third party under section 33(1) of LA FOIP and invited the third party to provide its consent to release the records or arguments to support withholding the records in question. The third party did not provide its consent but instead argued that section 18(1)(b) and 18(1)(c) of LA FOIP applied to the records and they should therefore be withheld. Despite section 18(1), the City concluded that release of the records was in the public interest pursuant to section 18(3) and advised the third party and the Applicant of its intention to release the records. The third party proceeded to submit a request for review to the Office of Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) of the decision of the City in regards to both access requests. The Applicant also requested a review of the same as the City withheld other portions of the record under section 28(1) of LA FOIP. The Commissioner found that neither sections 18(1)(b) or 18(1)(c) applied to the records in question for both access requests. The Commissioner also found that section 28(1) did not apply to any of the information severed by the City with respect to the first access request. The Commissioner recommended the City release everything withheld in full or in part for both access requests to the Applicant.

Investigation Report H-2013-001

February 1, 2013

HIPA 2(b), 2(m), 2(t)(ii), 2(u), 9, 16, 23, 26, 27(3)

The Commissioner was notified of three separate but similar cases where employees of the Regina Qu’Appelle Regional Health Authority (RQRHA) used their employee user privileges to electronic information systems to view and/or modify personal health information without proper authority. The Commissioner undertook investigations into each incident. He determined that the administrative safeguards that RQRHA had in place were inadequate, including the reliance on the non-statutory concept of ‘circle of care’ in RQRHA’s policies, procedures, and privacy training materials. He made a number of recommendations including replacing the problematic circle of care in all printed materials with the need-to-know rule.

Review Report LA-2013-001

January 9, 2013

LA FOIP 2(f)(xiii), 14(1)(d), 22, 23, 23(1), 23(1)(b), 23(1)(h), 23(2)(a), 23(2)(b), 28(1), 28(2), 28(2)(n)(i), 30, 30(1)(, 30(2), 30(3)

The Applicant, an employee of the Regina Qu’Appelle Regional Health Authority (RQRHA) made an access to information request to her employer for a number of records pertaining to two harassment investigations involving her. RQRHA denied access pursuant to sections 14(1)(d) and 28(1) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). The Commissioner found that section 14(1)(d) of LA FOIP only applied to a small portion of the record, and found that certain information contained in the withheld record constituted third party personal information. However, as bound by an earlier court decision, the Commissioner recommended release of all third party personal information to the Applicant. The Commissioner also recommended that the portions of the record that constituted the personal information of the Applicant and that which qualified as work product be released to her as well. Finally, the Commissioner recommended that RQRHA withhold the third party personal health information referenced in the record.

2012

Review Report F-2012-006

December 27, 2012

FOIP 8, 13(1)(a), 15(1)(c), 15(1)(k), 22(b), 24, 24(1.1), 29(1), 29(2)(i), 29(2)(i)(ii), 29(2)(o), 29(2)(u), 61; FOIP Regs 14(a), 16(g)(i); LA FOIP 28(2)(i)(i), 28(2)(n)(ii), 28(2)(s); LA FOIP Regs 10(g)(i); HIPA 2(m), 2(t)(i), 12, 32, 38, 38(1)(e),

The Applicant made an access to information request to the Ministry of Justice (Justice) requesting information pertaining to himself. Justice withheld in full or in part 75 pages pursuant to sections 13(1)(a), 15(1)(k), 22(b) and 29(1) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). Justice also applied The Health Information Protection Act (HIPA) denying the Applicant access to his own personal health information but not until December 2012 when the review was all but concluded. The Commissioner found that Justice had not met the burden of proof in applying section 13(1)(a) and 29(1) of FOIP. Further, he found that Justice had not appropriately applied section 15(1)(k) to the records in question. The Commissioner recommended that Justice release those records withheld under section 13(1)(a). He agreed with the exemption claimed pursuant to section 22(b) and he recommended those records not be released. Further, he recommended release of those records withheld under section 29(1), except for the Victim Impact Statement. Lastly, the Commissioner recommended release of the Applicant’s personal health information. The Commissioner also recommended that Justice review its records management practices with regards to prosecutorial records to ensure it is compliant with The Archives Act, 2004 of Saskatchewan and to revisit the issue of control over records that are in the possession of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for purposes of a prosecution under the Criminal Code of Canada.

Review Report LA-2012-004

November 28, 2012

LA FOIP 2(f)(viii), 3(1)(a), 3(1)(b), 17(1)(d), 17(1)(f), 17(1)(g), 18(1)(c), 18(1)(c)(i)

The Applicant made an access request to the Board of Education of the Saskatoon School Division No. 13 (the Board) for a contract between the Board and a Taxi Company. The Board released the majority of the contract to the Applicant, but withheld certain portions pursuant to sections 17(1)(d), 17(1)(f), 17(1)(g) and 18(1)(c) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The Commissioner found that in all cases the Board did not meet the burden of proof to demonstrate that the exemptions applied. The Commissioner recommended release of the withheld portions.

Investigation Report F-2012-005

October 31, 2012

FOIP 23(3)(l); FOIP Regs 12; HIPA 2(m)(i), 4(4)(b), 16, 23, 26(3)

The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) received a formal ‘breach of privacy’ complaint that related to the “use” by Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI) of personal information and personal health information of a claimant (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) under The Automobile Accident Insurance Act (AAIA). The Complainant alleged that too many employees at SGI had access to her personal information and personal health information. The Complainant was an employee of SGI and had filed an injury claim following a motor vehicle accident. SGI took the position that the OIPC had no authority to investigate these matters since neither The Health Information Protection Act (HIPA) Parts II, IV and V, nor The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) applied to the Complainant’s personal information and personal health information as it related to Part VIII of AAIA. The Commissioner considered representations from SGI and, consistent with past Reports issued by the Commissioner, concluded that there is no evidence that the Legislative Assembly would have intended to create such a gap in legislated privacy protection and that, in fact, there is no such gap as alleged by SGI. The Commissioner, however, recommended that the Legislative Assembly amend the appropriate legislation to clarify the rules that will apply to the personal information collected, used and disclosed by SGI in its activities under the AAIA and the role of the OIPC in overseeing SGI’s statutory responsibilities under FOIP and HIPA. He also recommended that SGI provide an apology to the Complainant and enhance its user access policies and procedures.

Investigation Report F-2012-004

October 25, 2012

FOIP 24(1)(a), 24(1)(b), 24(1)(d), 24(1)(e), 24(1)(g), 24(1)(i), 24(2)(a), 25; HIPA 2(m)(i), 2(m)(ii), 2(m)(v), 2(q), 16

The Commissioner was notified of four separate incidents where Saskatchewan Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) mailed personal information and personal health information to unintended recipients resulting in unauthorized disclosures. He performed a systemic investigation into WCB’s mail handling practices. WCB alleged that each incident was the result of human error. The Commissioner found that lack of clear and effective policies and procedures also contributed to three of the incidents. He also found that WCB did not track or monitor these breaches, nor did it deal with the breaches in a consistent and effective manner. He made a number of recommendations including one regarding the retrieval of personal information and personal health information that had gone astray.

Review Report LA-2012-003

October 2, 2012

LA FOIP 2(a), 2(e)(i), 2(f)(i), 7, 22, 38(1)(b), 50, 56(3); LA FOIP Regs 8.1(c)

Three access to information requests were made to the Village of Buena Vista (the Village) by the Village Mayor. The Village Administrator did not respond to the requests. The problem in this case was that the Mayor is designated as the “head” with responsibility under The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). However, the elected Council and Village Administrator did not agree and did not recognize this designation. The Commissioner found that the Mayor was the designated head of the local authority. Further, he found that the Village was in contravention of section 7 of LA FOIP. The Commissioner recommended that the Village Council and the Village Administrator recognize the lawful authority of the Mayor as head. As well, he recommended that the Minister of Justice consider whether an offence has been committed pursuant to section 56(3)(a) of LA FOIP by reason of the unwillingness of the Village Administrator and Council to allow the Mayor to discharge her responsibilities as head.

Review Report F-2012-005

August 29, 2012

FOIP 23, 23(3)(k)

Three different Saskatchewan Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) claimants submitted access to information requests to the WCB pursuant to The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) in 2008, 2009 and 2010. In each case, the Privacy Officer/Corporate Solicitor responded to the access requests by advising that the information sought is not subject to the access provisions of FOIP. The consistent position taken by the Commissioner and the Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner (Saskatchewan OIPC) since 2003 has been that section 23 of FOIP is a paramountcy provision and not an exclusion from FOIP. The Commissioner has taken the view that section 23 is not applicable since although there may appear to be a conflict between sections 171.1 and 171.2 of The Workers’ Compensation Act, 1979 (the WCA) and Parts II and III of FOIP, it is possible to read the provisions together so they are complementary and not adverse. Since one can comply with the WCA provisions without violating the FOIP provision for access to information, there is no genuine conflict and FOIP prevails. The view of the Commissioner has been outlined in detail in his Report F-2012-002 and Investigation Reports F-2009-001 and F-2007-001. The Commissioner recommended that WCB process each of the three access requests in accordance with FOIP. The Commissioner also recommended that WCB and the Minister responsible for the WCA resolve this matter by adopting the recommendations in the 2006 Committee of Review and ensure that FOIP explicitly guarantees injured workers the same rights to access information that exist for all other Saskatchewan residents when they deal with other government institutions and local authorities.

Investigation Report F-2012-003

August 29, 2012

FOIP 24(1)(b), 24(1)(k)(i), 29(1)

The Commissioner received a complaint that the Saskatchewan Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) disclosed the personal information of four employees to third parties without consent. The Commissioner found that in this case sections 171 to 171.2 of The Workers’ Compensation Act, 1979 were not paramount to the privacy protections in Part IV of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The Commissioner also found that the information constituted personal information under section 24(1) of FOIP. He determined that the complaint dealing with the disclosure of four employees’ personal information to a third party without the four employees’ consent and without other legal authority to do so was well-founded. The Commissioner offered a number of recommendations to WCB in respect to the findings.

Investigation Report F-2012-002

August 29, 2012

FOIP 24(1), 24(1)(b), 24(1)(j), 26(1)(e), 26(1)(h), 27, 32

The Complainant brought forward concerns regarding a telephone conversation that took place between a Saskatchewan Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) employee and a Trucking Company regarding the Complainant’s active claim. The Commissioner found that the company was a third party. As such, he found that there was an unauthorized disclosure of personal information when the WCB employee confirmed that the Complainant had an active claim. The Commissioner also found that, during this conversation, WCB collected personal information of the Complainant from the third party without proper authority to do so from The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Investigation Report F-2012-001

August 27, 2012

FOIP 24(1)(a), 24(1)(b), 24(1)(d), 24(1)(e), 24(1)(j), 25, 26(2), 27; HIPA 2(m)(v), 11, 16

The OIPC received a complaint regarding an apparent over-collection of a customer’s personal information by Saskatchewan Telecommunications (SaskTel) as part of its identity verification process. Though SaskTel eventually addressed the Complainant’s concerns, the investigation continued as the Commissioner had concerns with SaskTel’s broader collection practices. The Commissioner found that SaskTel did not have authority to collect the Saskatchewan Health Services Number. Secondly, SaskTel did not provide a satisfactory explanation as to why it needed to collect other unique identifiers over the phone since it could not verify the accuracy of same. Thirdly, the Commissioner found that SaskTel was apparently collecting third party personal information without authority. Also found was that SaskTel did not meet the notice requirements of section 26(2) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The Commissioner recommended that SaskTel conduct a privacy impact assessment, revise its privacy policy and prepare a script to ensure that its customers understand what is optional when providing proof of identity. He further recommended SaskTel within 60 days purge from its systems all personal information and personal health information of its customers and third parties collected without the requisite authority.

Review Report F-2012-004

June 12, 2012

FOIP 16, 16(1)(d)(i), 16(2), 17, 17(1)(a), 17(2), 24, 29(1)

Subsequent to the November 2007 provincial general election, the Applicant sought copies of briefing books provided to Ministers of 19 different government institutions. All access requests were transferred to Executive Council for processing. Executive Council denied access to all records relying on section 17(1)(a) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). After a preliminary analysis from the OIPC was received suggesting this exemption would not be upheld, Executive Council invoked a new exemption, section 16(1)(d) four years after the review commenced. After advising Executive Council that the burden of proof had not been met for section 16(1)(d) and our intention was to issue a formal report, Executive Council then invoked yet a third exemption, section 16(1). The Commissioner found that the responsive record included considerable statistical and background information to orient new Ministers that would not disclose the nature of Cabinet discussions nor would it disclose advice given or received by Cabinet ministers. The Commissioner determined that Executive Council failed to meet the burden of proof to justify any of the three exemptions invoked for all of the material but acknowledged it appeared there was material that would be caught by section 16(1). He recommended that the briefing books be disclosed to the Applicant after severing personal information and that information that properly qualified as „Cabinet confidence‟ material.

Investigation Report LA-2012-002

May 9, 2012

LA FOIP 2(f)(xiii), 3(1)(a), 3(1)(b), 4(a), 4(b), 4(e), 23(1)(b), 23(1)(j), 23(2)(a), 28(2)(i)(i)

A number of complaints were received by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner with respect to the Internet publication of the names and precise salaries of $50,000 or more paid to all employees of the Regina Qu‟Appelle Regional Health Authority (RQRHA) commencing in 2005. The Commissioner determined that the information published on the Internet was not captured by the definition of “personal information” for purposes of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP) since an exception for the salaries of employees of any local authority applied. He further found that even if it had qualified as “personal information”, there was authority for the Internet publication. This authority was explicit for the salary information of “members, officers and senior employees” of RQRHA. For all other employees the authority was by means of a delegation of authority to the Minister of Health who in turn required such Internet publication by means of the combined effect of The Regional Health Services Act, The Regional Health Services Administration Regulations and the Annual Report Content Requirements issued by the Ministry of Health. Notwithstanding the existence of legal authority for the Internet publication practice, the Commissioner determined that:
1. there were significant risks to individuals by virtue of the indiscriminate Internet publication of the names and salary information;
2. there exist privacy enhancing technologies that may significantly reduce the risk to individual employees, but these have not heretofore been required or employed by regional health authorities, the Ministry of Health or the Information Technology Office; and
3. RQRHA, the Ministry of Health and the Information Technology Office should consider utilizing the web robot exclusion protocol and other technologies to make more difficult the misuse of that published information about identifiable individuals.

Review Report LA-2012-002

April 26, 2012

LA FOIP 2(f)(xiii), 20, 23(1), 23(1)(a), 23(1)(b), 23(1)(d), 23(1)(k), 23(1)(k)(i), 28(1), 51; HIPA 38(1)(a)

The Applicant made application to the Kelsey Trail Regional Health Authority (KTRHA) for the names of Registered Nurses on duty at the Melfort Hospital on a certain date. KTRHA withheld all three pages citing sections 20 and 23(1) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as justification to deny access. The Commissioner determined that the employee numbers of the nurses qualified as personal information under section 23(1)(d) and should be severed from the pages. The remaining information in the pages did not qualify as personal information under section 23(1). The Commissioner also determined that KTRHA failed to meet the burden of proof in establishing the applicability of section 20. The Commissioner therefore recommended release of the remaining portions of the records at issue.

Review Report F-2012-003

March 29, 2012

FOIP 18(1)(d), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c), 19(1)(c)(i), 19(1)(c)(ii), 19(1)(c)(iii), 22(a), 22(c), 61

The Applicant made two separate access to information requests to the Ministry of Government Services pertaining to the sale of Crown land. Included in the responsive material were 14 documents that the Ministry withheld in full or in part pursuant to sections 18(1)(d), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c)(i), 19(1)(c)(ii), 19(1)(c)(iii), 22(a), 22(b) and 22(c) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The Commissioner found that the Ministry had not met the burden of proof in applying section 18(1)(d) of FOIP as it did not demonstrate that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with contractual or other negotiations. Further, he found that the Ministry had not identified the affected Third Parties and as such sections 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c)(i), 19(1)(c)(ii) and 19(1)(c)(iii) of FOIP did not apply. Finally he upheld the Ministry‟s decision to withhold certain documents pursuant to sections 22(a) and 22(c) of FOIP.

Investigation Report LA-2012-001

March 14, 2012

LA FOIP 2(f)(i), 2(f)(iv), 2(f)(v), 2(f)(xvii), 3(1)(a), 3(1)(b), 4(a), 4(b), 4(e), 23(1)(b), 23(1)(i), 23(1)(j), 23(1)(k)(i), 23(2)(a), 24, 28(2)(a), 28(2)(i), 28(2)(p), 28(2)(r), 28(2)(s); LA FOIP Regs 3(1), Part I Appendix

Two employees of the Moose Jaw Board of Police Commissioners (the Board) complained that details of their salary had been published by the City of Moose Jaw (the City) in its annual public accounts without their consent and without lawful authority. There is authority for the City to publish in its public accounts information about the salaries paid to the employees and officers of the City and of any board, commission or other body that is appointed by The Cities Act and which is prescribed. That would require that the Board be “established pursuant to The Cities Act.” The Commissioner found that the Board was instead established pursuant to The Police Act, 1990. In the result, the information of the employees in question qualified as “personal information” within the meaning of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). There was no authority in LA FOIP to disclose the salary information of the complainants. By reason of the operation of section 11 of The Cities Regulations, the City is constrained from publishing the complainants‟ personal information in identifiable form. The Commissioner further recommended that the Legislative Assembly clarify whether it intends that boards of police commissioners and municipal police services in Saskatchewan are or are not “local authorities” for purposes of LA FOIP.

Review Report F-2012-002

January 30, 2012

FOIP 2(1)(e), 5, 23, 23(3)(k), 60

The Applicant submitted a request for access to the Saskatchewan Workers‟ Compensation Board (WCB) for records involving the Members of the Board of WCB including minutes and correspondence with the Labour Minister and external bodies. In response, WCB provided only a copy of the “claim file”. The Applicant clarified that he was not seeking his claim file but rather other documents and materials involving the Board and its Members. WCB initially took the position that there would be no records responsive to the access request in any place other than on his claim file and maintained that position for almost three years. Thirty-four months after the request for access was made, WCB acknowledged that there were additional records related to the Applicant and his dealings with WCB but that these records were no longer available. The Commissioner found that WCB failed to discharge its implicit duty to assist and failed to conduct an adequate search for responsive records. The Commissioner found that in the absence of any WCB policy framework for notes and records created by Members of the Board, and in the absence of such notes and records, he was unable to conclude that such notes and records could not be captured by the scope of FOIP. He recommended that WCB immediately improve its policy dealing with the search for responsive records regardless of whether they should be part of the “claim file”. This should include appropriate documentation of search efforts. He further recommended that WCB develop a policy and undertake training for Members of the Board with respect to any records generated by the Board collectively or Members of the Board individually with respect to individuals and claimants.

Review Report F-2012-001 / LA-2012-001

January 6, 2012

FOIP 2(1)(j), 5, 13(2), 18(1)(d), 18(1)(f), 19(1)(b); FOIP Regs 2(2); LA FOIP 2(f)(i), 2(k)

Access requests were made by the same Applicant to both the Ministry of Government Services (formerly Saskatchewan Property Management) and the Resort Village of Fort San (RVFS or the Village) for similar records. The Ministry decided to withhold part of a responsive record, a proposal, relying on sections 13(2), 19(1)(b), 18(1)(d) and 18(1)(f) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The Commissioner undertook a review and found that section 13(2) did not apply because there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposal was obtained in confidence from RVFS. The Commissioner concluded section 19(1)(b) could not apply as a local authority, RVFS, cannot constitute a Third Party. He also found that the Ministry had not met the burden of proof to demonstrate that sections 18(1)(d) and 18(1)(f) applied in the circumstances to any of the responsive records in question. The Commissioner therefore recommended release of the withheld information in full to the Applicant. In the second case, even though RVFS disclosed 32 responsive records to the Applicant, he was dissatisfied as he asserted that there should be additional responsive records. The Commissioner undertook this second review to determine if there were additional responsive records in the possession or under the control of RVFS pursuant to section 5 of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The Commissioner found that RVFS had not performed an adequate search for records. The Commissioner made several recommendations related to the records management system of RVFS. Also, based on evidence taken from the 32 disclosed records and from the other review involving the Ministry, the Commissioner concluded that there were additional records under the control of RVFS. He recommended that RVFS obtain a copy of those records and provide the Applicant with a new section 7 response.

2011

Review Report LA-2011-004

November 21, 2011

LA FOIP 16(1)(a), 16(1)(b)

The Applicant applied to the City of Saskatoon (City) for certain documents. The City released some responsive records but withheld others citing sections 16(1)(a) and 16(1)(b) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP) as its authority. The City asserted that it had a right to withhold the records in question as they contained advice, proposals, recommendations, analyses or policy options for the City; and consultations or deliberations involving employees of the City. The documents pertain to the Destination Centre Steering Committee and included meeting minutes and e-mails. The City failed to provide sufficient information to meet its burden of proof in establishing that the exemptions in sections 16(1)(a) and 16(1)(b) applied to the records in issue. The Commissioner therefore recommended that the City release the documents.

Review Report LA-2011-003

November 21, 2011

LA FOIP 15(1)(b)(i)

The Applicant applied to the City of Saskatoon (City) for certain documents. The City released some responsive records but withheld others citing section 15(1)(b)(i) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP) as its authority. The City asserted that it had a right to withhold the records in question as the content had been dealt by its Executive Committee during in camera sessions. The Commissioner found that the City did not meet the burden of proof and recommended release of all withheld records.

Review Report LA-2011-002

November 21, 2011

LA FOIP 18(1)(b), 18(1)(c)

The Applicant filed an access to information request with the City of Saskatoon (City) pursuant to The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). The request was for the draft audit report on the City‟s snow and ice program. Although the City cited certain exemptions in its response to the Applicant‟s request, during the review process all exemptions were withdrawn except for sections 18(1)(b) and (c) of LA FOIP. The Commissioner determined that the information in the draft audit report was not supplied by the Auditor as a third party, but rather the information is the City‟s own information on its programs and services. Further, with regards to section 18(1)(c), the Commissioner received insufficient evidence from the City and from the Auditor to satisfy the harms test of this exemption. The Commissioner recommended that the draft audit report be released to the Applicant.

Investigation Report H-2011-001

July 14, 2011

HIPA 2(j), 2(m), 2(t), 16, 17(2)(a), 17(2)(b), 18, 22, 23; HIPA Regs 4

The Commissioner undertook an investigation of Dr. Teik Im Ooi of Albert Park Family Medical Centre (APFMC) after being alerted to a large volume of patient files being found in a recycling bin in Regina. The Commissioner found that Dr. Ooi failed to meet the requirements of section 16 of The Health Information Protection Act (HIPA) by failing to have written policies and procedures to adequately safeguard patients personal health information (phi). Further, that Dr. Ooi failed to take steps required by section 17 of HIPA to ensure that the patients’ phi was stored in a way that could be retrievable, readable and usable and to ensure that records were destroyed in a manner that protects the privacy of the affected patients. Finally, he found that Dr. Ooi failed to put in place agreements and mechanisms required by section 18 in dealings with the Information Management Service Providers (IMSPs) who provided storage, transportation and destruction of phi. The Commissioner made 11 recommendations including that Dr. Ooi provide notification to the affected patients, develop comprehensive written policies and procedures, develop formal written agreements with all IMSP and provide privacy training to staff. In addition, the Commissioner recommended that the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan implement a mandatory requirement for HIPA training, the Ministry of Health complete a comprehensive HIPA manual and the Ministry of Justice consider commencing a prosecution pursuant to section 64 of HIPA.

Review Report LA-2011-001

February 2, 2011

LA FOIP 15(1)(a), 15(1)(b), 16(1)(a), 16(1)(b), 16(1)(c), 18(1)(a), 18(1)(b), 18(1)(c), 18(2), 21, 23(1), 28(1), 51

The Applicant filed two access to information requests with the City of Saskatoon (City) pursuant to The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The responsive record for the first request is subsumed in the record of the broader, but similar, second request. Over 500 documents were withheld or severed by the City on the basis of section 21; sections 16(1)(a), (b) and (c); sections 18(1)(a), (b) and (c); and sections 15(1)(a) and (b). The City provided very little explanation or details to support the application of the exemptions to the responsive documents. The Commissioner reviewed the record to determine if on the face of the record any of the exemptions might apply. Only in the “clearest of circumstances” did the Commissioner find that some documents qualified for the exemption. This was the case for almost all of the documents on which solicitor-client privilege (section 21) was claimed, and some of the documents relative to advice from officials (section 16). The third party exemptions (section 18) and documents of a local authority exemption (section 15) were not found to apply to any of the documents. The exercise of discretion was also not apparent on the face of the record. The Commissioner provided guidance for applying each exemption and recommended that the City reconsider their decision to withhold or sever the documents at issue. The Commissioner will provide any assistance the City needs in order to reconsider each exemption and each document.

2010

Investigation Report F-2010-001

December 15, 2010

FOIP 24(1.1); HIPA 4(4)(b), 4(6), 23

The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) received three formal ‘breach of privacy’ complaints that relate to the collection, use and disclosure by Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI) of personal health information of claimants under The Automobile Accident Insurance Act (AAIA). The complaints alleged excessive collection of personal health information and improper use and disclosure of that personal health information. Our office commenced formal investigations in respect to each of the three complaints. SGI took the position that there is a gap in Saskatchewan’s legislative scheme for privacy protection. SGI asserted that the OIPC had no authority to investigate these matters since neither The Health Information Protection Act (HIPA) Parts II, IV and V, nor The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) applied to these complaints. The Commissioner considered representations from SGI and concluded that there is no evidence that the Legislative Assembly would have intended to create such a gap in legislated privacy protection and that, in fact, there is no such gap as alleged by SGI. The OIPC has explored with SGI informal means to resolve the impasse but no such resolution appears possible. The Commissioner recommends that the Legislative Assembly amend the appropriate legislation to clarify the rules that will apply to the personal information collected, used and disclosed by SGI in its activities under the AAIA and the role of the OIPC in overseeing SGI’s statutory responsibilities under FOIP and HIPA. He also recommended that SGI publish on its website clear information about its collection, use and disclosure practices. He further recommended that SGI revise its procedure for collection of personal health information to ensure that it is not over-collecting such information.

Review Report LA-2010-002

November 24, 2010

LA FOIP 2(e)(i), 3(1)(c), 5, 7, 23(1)(b), 38, 39, 43

The Applicant requested access under The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP) to the report resulting from a harassment investigation carried out by the City of Saskatoon in respect to that employee of the Saskatoon Police Service (SPS). The City asserted that it had neither possession nor control of the record and refused to provide the Saskatchewan Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) with a copy. When the OIPC provided the City with a draft analysis that suggested that the City did have at least possession of the record, the City transferred the report it had been storing for approximately eight years to the SPS. The Commissioner determined that his office was entitled to require the production of the record in order to make a determination on the issue of possession or control. He found that jurisdiction by the OIPC required only possession by the City and a measure of control and that the control did not have to be exclusive. He found that the SPS also had some control over the record but did not need to quantify that degree of control in light of his finding that “possession” for purposes of LA FOIP had been made. He also found that that the City had failed to meet its duty to assist the Applicant. As well the Commissioner found that the City had not met the burden of proof in establishing that the record had been placed in the possession of the City by or on behalf of persons or organizations other than the local authority for archival purposes in accordance with section 3(1)(c) of LA FOIP.

Review Report LA-2010-001

September 22, 2010

LA FOIP 16(1)(a), 16(1)(b), 16(1)(c), 16(1)(e), 21, 23(1), 23(1)(c), 23(1)(e), 23(2), 28(1)

The Applicant made two applications to the City of Saskatoon (the City) for records involving certain of its development projects. The City withheld the responsive material citing sections 16(1)(a), 16(1)(b), 16(1)(c), 16(1)(e), 21(a), 21(b) and 21(c) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). The Commissioner found that the City did not meet the burden of proof with respect to the application of sections 16(1)(c) or 16(1)(e) of LA FOIP to any record or portion therein. The Commissioner found that section 21 applied to the records in respect to which the City claimed solicitor-client privilege (four pages). The City applied sections 16(1)(a) and/or 16(1)(b) of LA FOIP to the remaining portion of the record (143 pages). The Commissioner agreed that these sections applied to much of the responsive record (content) but did not apply to email header information that did not reveal the substance of deliberations. He found that the exemptions did not apply to correspondence involving, or records containing, comments of third parties. During the review, the Commissioner’s office recommended release of this particular material. The City complied by releasing some records in full as well as email header information after severance of other content. The City advised the Commissioner of its disagreement with the recommendations pertaining to nine pages of the original 148, three of which contained personal data elements not previously identified. As the Commissioner agreed that the information in question was third party personal information, he upheld the City’s decision to withhold. He found however that sections 16(1)(a) and 16(1)(b) of LA FOIP did not apply to the remaining six pages or portions identified so recommended the City release.

Investigation Report LA-2010-001

May 19, 2010

LA FOIP 23(1)(d), 23(1)(e), 23(1)(j), 23(1)(k)(i), 28(2)(h)

The Complainant, an employee of the City of Saskatoon (City) discovered that the City had disclosed her personal information to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), formerly Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. The Complainant asked the City what authority it had to disclose her personal information to CRA. When she did not receive a satisfactory answer, she raised her concerns with the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner (the Commissioner). The Commissioner found that the City did not meet the burden of proof in showing that it had authority to disclose the Complainant’s personal information pursuant to section 28(2)(h) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). Furthermore, it did not show how utility information was required by the CRA for the purpose of administering or enforcing a tax law. The Commissioner also found that the City failed to exercise its discretion and disclosed more of the Complainant’s personal information than necessary. The Commissioner also found that the City did not respond adequately to the formal complaint. Finally, the Commissioner made several recommendations to the City for dealing with future requests for personal information from CRA.

Review Report F-2010-002

May 17, 2010

FOIP 7, 46(1), 46(3), 50(2)(a), 50(2)(b)

A series of requests for similar records were repeatedly submitted by the Applicant to the Ministry of Advanced Education, Employment and Labour, the Ministry of Executive Council, the Ministry of Justice and Attorney General, the Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board and the Saskatchewan Workers‟ Compensation Board. Requests for Review were submitted on the grounds that these government institutions failed to meet their obligations under section 7 of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). Through the course of the Reviews the government institutions raised the issue that the requests were frivolous, vexatious and not in good faith pursuant to section 50(2) of FOIP. The issues under review were the lack of a response pursuant to section 7 and whether the Reviews should be discontinued pursuant to section 50(2) of FOIP. The Commissioner found that some of the government institutions failed to meet their obligations pursuant to section 7 of FOIP. Also, in considering the actions of the Applicant, the Commissioner discontinued the Reviews pursuant to section 50(2)(a) and (b) of FOIP.

Investigation Report H-2010-001

March 23, 2010

HIPA 2(m), 2(t)(ix), 9, 10, 16, 24(1), 30

The Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner (the Commissioner) was alerted to an apparent privacy breach by a pharmacist in the Sunrise Health Region (Region). This involved the unauthorized viewing of personal health information of three individuals by a pharmacist employed by L & M Pharmacy Inc. (L & M). This viewing involved nine different viewing transactions at a time when none of the individuals were patients of that pharmacy. All of the viewing by the pharmacist was done by means of his accredited role as a User of the Pharmaceutical Information Program (PIP) and as an employee of L & M. The pharmacist was accredited as a User for purposes of the pharmacy in which he worked and also as User at the hospital within the Region for which he was a contractor. The Commissioner’s office undertook a breach of privacy investigation under the authority of The Health Information Protection Act (HIPA). He found that L & M was responsible for the actions of its employee. He also found that L & M breached HIPA in a number of respects, chiefly by failing to adopt policies and procedures to protect the personal health information in its custody or control as required by section 16 of HIPA. The viewing of the drug profiles was a “collection” of personal health information under HIPA that was improper. The Commissioner recommended that the User privileges of the pharmacist be suspended until L & M implement appropriate policy and procedures. That pharmacist’s use of PIP, once his User status is restored, should be the subject of regular monthly audits by HISC for a one year period to ensure HIPA compliance. The Commissioner also recommended changes to the PIP accreditation process and to log-on procedures by any pharmacist who seeks to view the PIP database.

Review Report F-2010-001

March 9, 2010

FOIP 2(1)(d), 2(1)(j), 12, 12(1)(a)(ii), 13(2), 17(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 20(a), 22, 22(a), 22(b), 22(c), 24(1), 29(1); FOIP Regs 2(2); LA FOIP (2)(k); LA FOIP 2(f)

The Applicant made two access to information requests to the former Department of Health, now the Ministry of Health (Health). With respect to the first application, after negotiating with Health to reduce a substantial fee estimate, the Applicant split his request into two. Health provided two revised fee estimates, one to find and reproduce paper records and the other for electronic records on the same topic. The Applicant disagreed with both estimates but paid the fees for paper records sought so Health would complete processing. The Applicant did not pay the deposit for the electronic records. With the second application, the Applicant disagreed with Health’s decision to extend the response deadline and to withhold records or portions thereof from him. In that regard, Health relied on sections 13(2), 17(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 20(a), 22, 24(1) and 29 of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The Commissioner undertook reviews of each of the issues raised by the Applicant. In his review of the fee estimates, the Commissioner found both to be excessive and recommended that Health reimburse fees paid by the Applicant for the first request and, to recalculate the second fee estimate. In terms of the second application, the Commissioner found the time extension was not warranted and that the exemptions cited for the most part did not apply to the withheld material. The Commissioner did uphold Health’s application of: (a) section 22 of FOIP to the records identified in the Index of Records and (b) section 29(1) of FOIP to the personal information of private citizens (contact information only) who shared his/her personal views with Health as part of a consultation process. The Commissioner recommended release of all other withheld information.

2009

Review Report H-2009-001 and LA-2009-002

December 17, 2009

LA FOIP 2(f)(xiii), 16(1)(a), 16(1)(b), 21, 23, 23(1)(b), 28(1), 49; HIPA 2(m), 2(t)(ii), 35, 38, 38(1)(d)(iii), 38(1)(e), 39, 56(a)

The Applicant applied simultaneously under The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP) for access to the personal information of his deceased mother (the deceased) and general information related to her care in the possession or control of the Regina Qu’Appelle Health Region (RQHR or Region), and for access to the personal health information of the deceased under The Health Information Protection Act (HIPA). The Region refused access to records responsive to the request based on its contention that the Applicant’s request was not related to the administration of an estate in accordance with section 56 of HIPA or section 49 of LA FOIP. Access was also denied based on section 38 of HIPA and sections 16 and 21 of LA FOIP. The Commissioner found that the Applicant was acting as a personal representative and that the access request did relate to the administration of the deceased’s estate in accordance with both LA FOIP and HIPA. The Commissioner found that exemptions claimed under section 38 of HIPA did not apply to the withheld information. The Commissioner found that section 16 exemptions applied to some information, but recommended the release of other records. The Commissioner found that section 21 of LA FOIP did not apply to records in Package A and that RQHR failed to meet the burden of proof in claiming this exemption in respect to Package B. The Commissioner found that some of the information in the responsive record was personal information of identifiable individuals and recommended it be withheld in accordance with section 28(1) of LA FOIP. In failing to respond openly, accurately and completely to the Applicant’s request, the Commissioner found that the Region failed to meet the duty to assist.

Review Report LA-2009-001

December 8, 2009

LA FOIP 2(f)(xvii), 2(k), 3, 4, 13(2), 17, 18(1)(b), 18(1)(c), 23(1), 23(2), 23(2)(e), 23(2)(g), 23(2)((h), 28(1)

The Applicant made four different applications to the Saskatchewan Health Research Foundation (SHRF) for grant applications made by researchers. SHRF denied access relying on sections 18(1)(b), 18(1)(c) and 28(1) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). The Commissioner found that SHRF had authority to withhold the material pursuant to these sections, but recommended release of information withheld that was otherwise publicly available pursuant to sections 3 and 4 of LA FOIP. Though raised by the parties to the review, the Commissioner did not find that sections 17 or 13(2) of LA FOIP had any application in the circumstances.


Investigation Report F-2009-001

October 28, 2009

FOIP 23(3)(k), 26(3), 27, 59(e); FOIP Reg 18; HIPA 4(4)

The Complainant was an injured worker who sought compensation from the Saskatchewan Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) under The Workers’ Compensation Act, 1979. The Complainant identified four concerns with actions of WCB in regard to his personal information and the way it was collected, used and disclosed. The Commissioner, under the authority of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP), found that one of the complaints dealing with the disclosure of personal information of the Complainant to a third party without the Complainant’s consent and without legal authority to do so was well-founded. The Commissioner offered a number of recommendations to WCB in respect to that complaint. The other three complaints were not well-founded. The Commissioner expanded the investigation however to address whether WCB had met its duty under FOIP to ensure the personal information it collected was accurate and complete. He found that WCB had not met this duty. The Commissioner offered a number of recommendations in respect of this failure to discharge its obligations related to accuracy of the personal information it collected about the Complainant and whether that personal information was complete.

2008

Review Report F-2008-002

October 9, 2008

FOIP 2(1)(d), 5, 7(2)(e); FOIP Regs Part I Appendix

A request for copies of any minutes of meetings from the Funeral and Cremation Services Council (Council) was submitted to the Superintendent of Funeral and Cremation Services (Superintendent) at the Consumer Protection Branch, an agency of the Department of Justice (Justice) now known as the Ministry of Justice and Attorney General. Justice responded that it did not have such a record in its possession. The issue under review was whether the responsive record, even if not in Justice’s possession, was nonetheless in its control. The focus of the analysis was on section 5 of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The Commissioner found that, of the factors recognized in other jurisdictions, none existed in this case to render the Council’s records under the ‘control’ of Justice. The Commissioner further found that The Funeral and Cremation Services Act (FCSA) creates a system whereby the Council operates independently from Justice in its management of the licensees under the FCSA, and that the Superintendent acts largely as an oversight body. This involves the consideration of appeals from Council decisions and other matters that pertain to the administration of the FCSA. As such, it is not reasonable for
any meeting minutes of the Council to be considered to be under the control of Justice.

Review Report H-2008-002

September 11, 2008

HIPA 2(m)(i), 2(t)(xii)(A), 2(u), 16, 38(1)(a), 38(1)(c), 47, 64(1)(e),

The Applicant attended on Dr. Harding, a Regina psychologist, for purposes of an independent medical examination (IME) in the form of a psychological assessment, at the request of the Applicant’s employer. Before commencing the IME, Dr. Harding received a five page letter from a third party dated March 12, 2007 (March 12, 2007 letter). This letter contained personal health information concerning the Applicant and also a number of prejudicial statements about the Applicant. Dr. Harding denied access to the March 12, 2007 letter and personal health information in other documents concerning the Applicant. She did so citing section 38(1)(a) of The Health Information Protection Act (HIPA) (reasonable expectation of injury to any person) and section 38(1)(c) of HIPA (disclosure of identity of source of confidential information). The Commissioner determined that the Applicant was entitled to access to his personal health information in Dr. Harding’s file including the March 12, 2007 letter subject to appropriate severing. He recommended that portions of the letter be severed on account of information that did not qualify as “personal health information” and other portions on account of the requirement to not disclose the source of confidential information supplied by a third party.

Review Report H-2008-001

March 24, 2008

LA FOIP 2(f), 5, 7, 20, 22; LA FOIP Regs 8.1(b), HIPA 4(4), 4(6), 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38(1)(a), 39

The Applicant requested records (orally and in writing) from the Saskatoon Regional Health Authority (SRHA or Region) at different times. When the Applicant made application in the prescribed form, the Region did not respond as required by The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP) apparently due to the anticipated litigation. The Region later denied access by invoking section 20 of LA FOIP, section 38(1)(a) of The Health Information Protection Act and sections 3 and 36 of The Occupational Health and Safety Act. Through the mediation process, the Region reconsidered and released those withheld documents to the Applicant in full. However, the Region did not provide another document later requested by the Applicant’s lawyer from its Clinical Health Psychology department at Royal University Hospital as the fees requested were not paid. During mediation, the Region waived its fees and provided the record sought by the Applicant without charge. The Region also provided the Applicant with a full index of the additional records on his patient file with Clinical Health Psychology. As the Region did not provide timely, adequate responses to the Applicant, and did not adequately search for responsive records, the Commissioner found that the Region did not meet the duty to assist in the circumstances. The Commissioner also found the Region’s ‘LA FOIP section 7’ responses to the Applicant’s written requests to be deficient.

Review Report F-2008-001

February 29, 2008

FOIP 7, 7(2)(e),12, 12(1)(b), 12(3), 13(1)(a), 21, 24(1), 24(1)(b), 29(1); HIPA 2(m), 38(1)(a)

Two applicants made separate applications, the first to records of the Regina Provincial Correctional Centre (RPCC) and the second, to the Saskatoon Provincial Correctional Centre (SPCC). In both cases, the government institution responsible for those facilities, Saskatchewan Corrections and Public Safety (CPS), was unable to produce some of the records requested. In the case of the first applicant, the missing documentation was eventually accounted for and provided to the applicant along with other responsive records released in full or in part. Some of these records or portions of records, CPS withheld citing sections 13(1)(a), 21, and 29(1) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and section 38(1)(a) of The Health Information Protection Act. In the case of the second applicant, CPS provided sufficient evidence to substantiate its claims that no responsive records existed. The Commissioner found that in its dealings with both applicants, CPS did not meet the duty to assist as deadlines were missed and the initial searches conducted were inadequate. The Commissioner also found deficiencies in the department’s section 7 responses to both applicants. Though the Commissioner found that in the case of the first applicant, CPS provided proper notice to the Applicant of its decision to extend the response deadline, he found that CPS did not have a proper basis to extend the response time. Though the Commissioner did not find that section 21 of FOIP or section 38(1)(a) of HIPA applied to any of the information to which severance was applied, he agreed that CPS had properly applied section 13(1)(a) of FOIP to the nine records it withheld from the first applicant. Other third party personal information was also properly withheld from that applicant.

2007

Review Report LA-2007-002

December 18, 2007

LA FOIP 3(1)(a), 3(1)(b), 23, 23(1)(b), 23(1)(j), 23(1)(i), 28

The Applicant sought information from the Rural Municipality of Edenwold #158 (the R.M.) consisting of the names of registered owners of property in the R.M. together with the street address and the balance of the tax account owing on each property. The R.M. denied access on the basis that the information sought would be personal information of the property owners and could not be disclosed under The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). The Commissioner found that LA FOIP did not apply to certain information that was material available for purchase by the public in accordance with section 3(1)(a) of LA FOIP. This information consisted of the legal description of the land, the name of the registered owner, the published mailing address of that registered owner, the value of the current tax assessment, whether that tax assessment has been paid in full, and if not, the sum of arrears. All of this information is available by means of municipal tax certificates or title searches through Information Services Corporation of Saskatchewan (ISC). The Commissioner recommended that the other information on the assessment roll, when it identifies an individual, should be viewed as personal information and not released without the consent of the individual, all as provided by section 28 of LA FOIP. The Commissioner further recommended that the Minister of Municipal Affairs should provide clear direction to all municipalities to ensure a clear and consistent understanding of what qualifies as personal information under LA FOIP. That direction should address the bulk sale of data and Internet publication of such data.

Review Report H-2007-001

November 21, 2007

HIPA 2(m)(i), 2(m)(ii), 2(m)(iv), 2(t)((xi), 27(4), 38(1)

The Applicant made application to the Saskatchewan Cancer Agency (SCA) for a copy of his complete patient file. SCA withheld 12 pages citing section 38(1) of The Health Information Protection Act (HIPA) as justification to deny access. The Commissioner determined that the section had no application and recommended the release of the withheld documents.

Review Report LA-2007-001

October 1, 2007

LA FOIP 14(1)(d), 16(1), 16(1)(a), 16(1)(b), 16(2), 17(1)(d), 17(1)(f), 18(1)(c), 23, 23(1)(b), 28; LA FOIP Regs 10(g)(ii)

The Applicant sought access to the letters of resignation from three former members of the University of Saskatchewan Biomedical Research Ethics Board. The University refused access on the basis of a number of exemptions, namely sections 14(1)(d); 16(1)(a) and (b); 17(1)(d) and (f); 18(1)(c) and 23(1)(h) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The Commissioner upheld the severing of two paragraphs in one letter on the basis of section 16(1)(a) and recommended the severing of personal information of third parties pursuant to section 28. He recommended that the redacted record be provided to the Applicant.

Investigation Report H-2007-001

June 6, 2007

FOIP 2(1)(d)(i); HIPA 2(j), 2(t)(i), 16, 18

Three individuals complained to the Commissioner that each received mail from branches of Saskatchewan Health (SK Health) in unsealed or improperly sealed envelopes. Each individual was concerned as the letters within those envelopes consisted of either the data subject’s personal information or personal health information. Even though SK Health relies on Saskatchewan Property Management (SPM) to process some of its bulk mailings, the Commissioner found that this does not relieve SK Health of its obligation under section 16 of The Health Information Protection Act to protect personal health information. The Commissioner found, although there was no evidence of improper access to the personal information/personal health information contained within the improperly or unsealed envelopes, SK Health did not have adequate safeguards in place to protect personal information/personal health information externally processed for mailing by SPM.

Review Report F-2007-002

March 28, 2007

FOIP 17(1)(b)(i), 22, 61

The applicant requested a review of the decision of Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI) to deny access to nine documents in the applicant’s file under The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act). SGI claimed sections 17(1)(b)(i) and 22 of the Act to support the decision to deny access. The Commissioner found that SGI did not meet the burden of proof mandated by section 61 of the Act and recommended release of the withheld records.

Investigation Report F-2007-001

March 28, 2007

The Complainant initiated a claim under The Workers Compensation Act, 1979 for compensation arising from what he alleged was a workplace injury. The Saskatchewan Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) collected, used and disclosed both personal information under The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) and personal health information under The Health Information Protection Act (HIPA) of the Complainant. The Commissioner found that the WCB disclosed to the Complainant’s employer more personal information and personal health information than was necessary. The Commissioner further found that the WCB failed to adequately safeguard the Complainant’s information when it sent copies of his personal information and personal health information to the Complainant by ordinary mail. That package was not received by the Complainant and cannot be accounted for. The Commissioner recommended that WCB should make reasonable efforts to retrieve documents improperly disclosed to the employer in order to destroy them and should officially apologize to the Complainant for the loss of his file. The Commissioner, after reviewing the policies and procedures of WCB intended to protect the privacy of claimants and the confidentiality of their personal information and personal health information, concluded that the WCB in certain key areas had not met the requirements of HIPA, of FOIP or of the Overarching Personal Information Privacy Framework for Executive Government. The Commissioner recommended a number of revisions to:
• the organization of WCB to manage the ‘access and privacy file’,
• the policies and procedures of WCB for the handling of personal information of claimants and
• the website and public information materials of WCB to make them more helpful to the public.

Review Report F-2007-001

March 22, 2007

FOIP 6(1)(b), 6(3), 7(1), 7(2)(a), 9(2), 9(5), 24(1)(k), 29; FOIP Regs 7(1), 9

The Applicant requested access to records from Saskatchewan Northern Affairs (Northern Affairs) and was given a fee estimate. The Applicant applied to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Saskatchewan (OIPC) to request a review of the fee estimate. The Commissioner found that Northern Affairs erred in failing to address the request for a fee waiver. The Commissioner determined that the fee estimate from Northern Affairs included work to be done by two other government departments on records neither in the possession nor in the control of Northern Affairs. The Commissioner further determined that the fee estimate was not properly prepared and failed to provide the information necessary for the Applicant to decide whether to proceed with the request. Northern Affairs failed to satisfy the burden of proof that the fee estimate was reasonable. Furthermore, Northern Affairs failed to satisfy the implicit duty to assist.

2006

Review Report F-2006-005

December 15, 2006

FOIP 12, 12(1), 12(1)(a)(ii), 12(1)(b), 12(2)

Each of five government institutions invoked section 12 of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) to extend the time to respond to an access for information request for up to a further 30 days in addition to the original prescribed time period of 30 days. The Commissioner identified the information that should be included in a notice to any applicant that the time for response has been extended. He also discussed the criteria to determine whether a response beyond 30 days is appropriate under both section 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(b) of the Act and the kind of evidence that should be provided by a government institution to meet its burden of proof. The Commissioner commented on the claim by a government institution that responding to an access request within the 30 day period would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the government institution and determined this could not be invoked if the institution had failed to make adequate provision for meeting its statutory responsibilities.

Review Report F-2006-004

November 29, 2006

FOIP 7, 12(1)(b), 15(1)(c), 17(1)(b)(i), 24(1), 24(1)(f), 24(1)(h), 24(2)(c), 29(1), 31

Two Applicants jointly applied for a copy of the file created by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission (the Commission) during its investigation of the Applicants’ human rights complaint. The Commission released portions of the file to the Applicants but withheld the remainder citing sections 15(1)(c) and 17(1)(b) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as its authority to do so. The Commissioner found that some third party personal information and consultative/deliberative material was rightfully withheld, but he recommended release of many of the withheld documents in full or in part.

Review Report F-2006-003

September 11, 2006

FOIP 2(1)(d), 7(2), 7(2)(d), 8, 12(1), 12(1)(a)(i), 12(1)(b), 12(2), 12(3), 27

The Applicant requested a review of the decision of Saskatchewan Justice (Justice) to extend the 30 day response deadline mandated by The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) by an additional 15 days. Justice employed section 12(1)(b) of the Act claiming that it could not reasonably complete “consultations” that were necessary in order to properly comply with the Applicant’s application within the 30 day time limit. The Commissioner determined that Justice did not properly invoke this subsection as it did not initiate consultations in a timely manner and many of those activities described by Justice as “consultations” did not qualify as consultations within the meaning of the Act. The notice provided to the Applicant met the requirements of section 12(2) of the Act. However, the response did not meet the requirements of section 7(2)(d) and subsequently section 12(3) of the Act as Justice did not adequately identify which exemptions applied to each severed line item of the record nor did it offer adequate reasons for the refusal to permit access to certain records.

Review Report F-2006-002

September 7, 2006

FOIP 2(1)(i), 13(1)(a), 17(1)(a), 17(2)((c)(i), 18(1)(f), 18(2)(a), 19(1)(b), 50(2); FOIP Regs Appendix Part I

The Applicant applied under The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for access to records in the possession of Saskatchewan Research Council (SRC), a government institution, including information relating to and generated by SRC in its analysis of samples provided for environmental testing by various third parties. SRC refused access to all responsive records citing sections 13(1)(a), 17(1)(a), 17(2)(c)(i), 18(1)(f), 18(2)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Act. The Commissioner determined that the raw data, the test reports, and other documents related directly to the testing carried out by SRC as a service for a fee had been properly withheld. However, a few documents or portions thereof included in the record contain general administrative or billing information of Saskatchewan Research Council that should be released to the Applicant.

Review Report H-2006-001

July 20, 2006

HIPA 27(2)(c), 27(4)(e), 35, 36(1)(c), 39, 56, 56(f)

The Applicant made an application for access to the personal health information of his late father that was in the custody of Saskatoon Regional Health Authority (“the Region”). The Commissioner found that the Applicant was not the personal representative of his father and therefore was not entitled to access. However, the Commissioner found that the Region nevertheless failed to meet the duty to assist. The Commissioner recommended that although the Region’s denial of the Applicant’s request for access was in keeping with Part V and section 56 of The Health Information Protection Act, the Region could nonetheless have addressed a disclosure to the Applicant of a limited portion of the health record consisting of information that relates to circumstances surrounding the death of and services recently received by the father under section 27(4)(e) of the Act. The Commissioner found that access fees do not apply to a ‘disclosure’ under section 27(4)(e) but offered commentary on the fees quoted by the Region and recommended that the Region reconsider its approach to fees for such a disclosure.

Review Report F-2006-001

March 31, 2006

FOIP 13(2), 15(1)(c), 24(2), 29(1); HIPA 2(b), 2(t)

The Applicant sought access to personal information and other records pertaining to a fire investigation. The government institution in possession of those records refused to provide access to all records citing sections 15(1)(c), 13(2), and 29(1) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The Commissioner found that the government institution had not met the burden of proof with respect to the application of the exemptions in question and accordingly recommended the release of the record to the Applicant after severance of third party personal information.

2005

Review Report F-2005-007

November 3, 2005

FOIP 23(1), 24(1), 24(2)(e), 24(3), 29

The Applicant sought the detailed claims history of a vehicle owned by the Applicant. SGI denied access on the basis that would disclose personal information about previous owners of the same vehicle. The Commissioner held that the claims history of a motor vehicle registered in Saskatchewan, once specific identifying information has been severed, is not personal information within the meaning of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Investigation Report LA-2005-003

October 24, 2005

LA FOIP 2(f)(i), 4(a), 4(b), 23(2)(d)

The complainant raised with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner a concern that when he applied to the City of Saskatoon for a building permit for renovations to his residence, personal information from the permit application form appeared to have been sold to contractors and suppliers. The Commissioner determined that section 4(a) and (b) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act applied. The complaint was not well-founded.

Review Report F-2005-006

August 12, 2005

FOIP 18(1)(b)

The Applicant applied under The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the “Act”) for a copy of a 2003 customer satisfaction survey relating to retail liquor stores operated by a government institution. The survey was prepared by a third party. The government institution withheld portions of the record invoking section 18(1)(b) of the Act, but released the remainder to the Applicant. The Commissioner found the denial of the severed portions of the record by the body to be authorized pursuant to the Act.

Review Report F-2005-005

July 20, 2005

FOIP 2(1)(d)(ii), 9(2), 9(3), 9(4), 61; FOIP Regs 6(2), 6(3), 7(1), 8(1)

The Applicant requested records from SaskEnergy Incorporated (“SaskEnergy”). SaskEnergy produced a fee estimate. The Applicant requested that the Commissioner review the fee estimate. The Commissioner found that he had authority to review the fee estimate under section 7(2)(a) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy
Act. The Commissioner found that the fee estimate was excessive and recommended it be reduced.

Review Report F-2005-004

May 6, 2005

FOIP 17(1)(b)(i)

The Applicant applied under The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the “Act”) for access to personal information related to his injury file. The government institution originally refused access to 30 documents to the applicant invoking section 17(1)(b)(i) (consultations and deliberations involving employees of government institution). After discussions with the Commissioner, SGI agreed to release almost all of the documents, some with sections severed. Only six documents were not released to the Applicant. The Commissioner upholds the denial of the remaining documents and severed sections on the released records.

Review Report F-2005-003

May 5, 2005

FOIP 2(1)(d), 2(1)(j), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c)(ii)

The Applicant made an access request for records in the possession or control of a government institution. These were exchanged between the government institution and the third party. The documents related to the third party’s role in assessing the validity of features contemplated within the government institutions utility bundle proposal. The government institution withheld the record citing s. 19(1)(b) and 19(c)(ii) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. After hearing from the parties to this review, the Commissioner found that the government institution had not satisfied the burden of proof to justify the exemptions claimed. Accordingly, the Commissioner recommends that the records be released to the Applicant.

Investigation Report H-2005-002

April 27, 2005

FOIP 29(2)(h)(v); HIPA 2(j), 2(q), 6, 9(1), 9(2), 9(3), 10, 16, 18, 23(2), 25(1)(f), 26(2)(a), 27(2), 27(2)(a), 27(2)(b), 27(3), 27(3)(a), 27(4)(j), 28(1)(a), 29

The Commissioner undertook an own motion investigation of the Saskatchewan Cancer Agency’s (Agency) prevention program for cervical cancer’s (PPCC) to assess compliance with The Health Information Protection Act (HIPA) and privacy best practices. Although the focus was primarily the practices of the Agency, he also considered the roles played by Saskatchewan physicians, Saskatchewan Health and the laboratories in the Regina Qu’Appelle Regional Health Authority (RQRHA) and the Saskatoon Regional Health Authority (SRHA). For the most part, the Commissioner determined that the PPCC complies with HIPA. However, three significant issues were identified: (1) the need for greater transparency; (2) the ability of the Agency to rely on the deemed consent provisions in HIPA; and (3) the need for an opt-out mechanism for Saskatchewan women. The Commissioner made a number of recommendations to the various parties but also recommended that the Legislative Assembly amend HIPA by substituting implied consent for deemed consent.

Review Report F-2005-002

March 24, 2005

FOIP 7(4), 22(a), 22(b)

The Applicant sought records from Saskatchewan Justice with respect to estimates of the Saskatchewan government’s financial liability concerning certain litigation in which the government was involved. Justice refused to acknowledge whether responsive records existed and further, denied access on the basis of section 22 (solicitor-client privilege) and section 18 (injury to economic and other interests). The Commissioner found that Justice should have acknowledged whether responsive records exist. The Commissioner further found that access should be denied on the basis of the section 22 exemption that was well-founded.

Review Report F-2005-001

March 24, 2005

FOIP 2(2)(d), 24(1), 24(1)(b), 24(1)(d), 24(1)(k), 29; HIPA 2(h), 2(m), 2(t)

The Applicant applied under The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the “Act”) for access to records relating to a specific industrial accident in the possession or control of a government institution. The government institution provided access to all responsive documents, but withheld certain severed data elements invoking section 29 of the Act. The government institution’s submission claims that while some of the severed information constitutes personal information under section 24 of the Act, others severed constitutes personal health information under section 2(m) of The Health Information Act (“HIPA”). The Commissioner upheld the denial of access to some of the severed data elements under the Act, but not those claimed as exempt under HIPA.

Investigation Report F-2005-001

January 27, 2005

FOIP 3(1)(b), 4(b), 29(2)(a), 29(2)(t); FOIP Regs 18, Appendix, Part I; HIPA 2(t)(i), 4(4), 4(6), 16

The Complainant asked the Commissioner to investigate the practice of the Automobile Injury Appeal Commission of publishing on its website the full text of its decisions. Those decisions include a good deal of personal information and personal health information of those persons applying for compensation. The Commissioner found that there was no legislative requirement that the Commission publish decisions on its website and that such publication falls short of privacy ‘best practices’. The Commissioner found that the Commission had failed to adequately protect the privacy of the applicant as it is required to do by The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and The Health Information Protection Act. The Commissioner made 11 recommendations to the Commission.

2004

Review Report F-2004-007

October 14, 2004

FOIP 18(1)(d), 18(1)(f), 19(1)(c)

The Applicant sought records with respect to the operation of a soundstage facility. This included the lease of premises to third parties. The Commissioner found that the exemptions claimed by Saskatchewan Property Management Corporation, namely, sections 18(1)(d), (f) and 19(1)(c) did not apply to certain financial records with respect to the operation of the facility and recommended release of same. The Commissioner recommended that SPMC undertake a line by line review of all records responsive to the original request and to provide those records to the Applicant subject to severing where appropriate.

Review Report F-2004-006

September 23, 2004

FOIP 15(1)(c); FOIP Regs Appendix Part I; HIPA 4(3); 16, 38(1)(e)

The Applicant sought access to a file in the possession of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission. The file in question had been provided to the Commission in 2002 for purposes of an investigation undertaken pursuant to the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code. This included material from an organization not subject to The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (“FOIP Act”). The Commission refused access on the basis of s. 15(1)(c) of the FOIP Act. The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that 48 documents did not come within that exemption and should be produced to the Applicant after appropriate severing. The balance of documents were properly withheld on the basis of the exemption cited by the Commission. The documents to be withheld included personal health information under The Health Information Protection Act (“HIPA”). The Commissioner found that the personal health information had been collected principally in anticipation of a quasijudicial proceeding and should not be released.

Review Report F-2004-005

September 23, 2004

FOIP 7(2)(c)

The Applicant sought certain materials prepared by or for or held by Executive Council with respect to a public opinion survey in November 2003. Executive Council denied access on the basis that the information would be published within 90 days. The Commissioner found that Executive Council calculated the time correctly. The Commissioner further found that Executive Council failed to meet its duty to reasonably assist the Applicant and failed to respond openly, accurately and completely. The Commissioner recommended that Executive Council provide access to the raw data related to the survey and to records with respect to the costs of the survey.

Review Report F-2004-004

September 23, 2004

FOIP 16(1)(a), 16(2)(b), 61; FOIP Regs 18

The Applicant sought information with respect to budget materials prepared in anticipation of the Wide Open Future advertising campaign. During a media scrum, the Premier verbally advised the Applicant that the documents he sought would be released. The Commissioner found that this did not constitute valid consent and the documents were therefore properly withheld from disclosure as being records created to present advice and recommendations to the Executive Council.

Review Report LA-2004-001

July 20, 2004

LA FOIP 23(1)(k), 23(2)(b), 28(2), 30(2)

The Applicant was denied access to certain records in the possession or control of the School Division that were critical of the Applicant’s suitability for volunteering in after-school sport activities. The Commissioner found that the stated reason for denial of access was not appropriate given The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Investigation Report H-2004-001

July 12, 2004

FOIP 2(2)(d); FOIP Regs 3, Part I of the Appendix; HIPA 2(h), 2(m), 2(t)(i), 4(4)(b), 4(6), 16

The Complainant asserted that SGI collected more of her personal health information than necessary and violated The Health Information Protection Act. The Complainant had made a claim for compensation arising from a motor vehicle accident. The Commissioner made a finding that, in the unusual circumstances of this claim, SGI did not collect more personal health information than necessary.

Review Report F-2004-003

May 31, 2004

FOIP 24, 29

The Applicant sought information with respect to applications for relapse benefits from the start of no-fault insurance in Saskatchewan in 1995 and the number and details of those who received benefits under the Automobile Accident Insurance Act. SGI denied access on the basis that the information sought is not tracked and would entail personal information for other persons. The Commissioner recommended that SGI had responded appropriately and no further action should be required of SGI.

Review Report F-2004-002

April 2, 2004

FOIP 17(1)(b)(i)

The Applicant applied under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the “Act”) for access to personal information related to his insurance claim. The government institution refused access to 5 documents and released the balance of the records. The Commissioner recommended that the burden of proof in respect to three of the documents had not been satisfied by SGI under section 17(1)(b)(i) (consultations and deliberations involving employees of government institution) and that accordingly these documents should be disclosed to the applicant. The Commissioner recommended that the remaining two documents should not be disclosed since the exemption had been properly applied.

Review Report F-2004-001

March 31, 2004

FOIP 17(1)(b)(i)

The Applicant applied under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the “Act”) for access to personal information related to her insurance claim. The government institution refused access to 5 documents and released the balance of the records. The Commissioner recommended that the exemption claim of the government institution under section 17(1)(b)(i) (consultations and deliberations involving employees of government institution) be upheld.

Nothing Found...

There are no reports found for your query!