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

Check out our latest blog on safeguarding your information during the holiday season

Privacy Commissioner finds that Canadians have a right to have information de-listed from online search engine results in limited circumstances.

How systemic delays, a backlog of overdue requests, and process errors led to UBC having the lowest rate of compliance.

NEW Checklist for Healthcare Organizations Considering the use of an AI Scribe

Privacy Commissioner of Canada to investigate cybersecurity breach at WestJet

PowerSchool commits to strengthened breach measures following engagement with the Privacy Commissioner of Canada

Sask. information and privacy commissioner brings a focus on cyber security, AI

Blog

Work Product vs. Personal Information

November 5, 2025 - Grace Hession David, Information and Privacy Commissioner

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

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

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

Categories: BlogTags: , , ,

Back to Blog

Was this page helpful?

Google Translate Disclaimer

Translations on the IPC Website are performed by Google Translate. Please note that not all text may be translated accurately or be translated at all. The IPC is not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translations. The IPC will not be held responsible for any damage or issues that may result from using Google Translate.

For more information, read our full disclaimer.