"INSTITUTION"

• The Mining and Lands Commissioner was not designated as an institution by regulation and was not a ministry or part of the Ministry of Natural Resources. As a result, it was not an "institution" under the Act and its records were not accessible under the Act. The Information and Privacy Commission considered that the Mining and Lands Commissioner was independent of the Ministry of Natural Resources and exercised independent administrative and quasi-judicial functions. Appeals of its decisions were made to the courts and not to the Minister of Natural Resources. (The Mining and Lands Commissioner was subsequently covered under the Act by regulation.) (Order #P-231)

• The Courts in Ontario are not designated as an institution under Regulation 460 nor are the courts included in paragraph (a) of the definition of "institution" nor do they form part of any ministry of the Ontario government for the purposes of the Act. (Order #P-994)

• Crime Stoppers Inc. is not an institution under MFIPPA. It is a separate organization from the police force. It was staffed by police force employees on secondment to Crime Stoppers. Although these secondees could access Crime Stoppers' records, they did so as officers of the corporation and not as employees of the police force. (Order #M-875)

"LAW ENFORCEMENT"

Part (a)

• Inquiries undertaken by the police into allegations of abuse at a detention centre constitute "policing" and, hence, "law enforcement" for the purposes of this section. (Order P-1364)

Part (b) Charter Rights

• [T]he information at issue in these appeals falls within the caveat articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada in C.B.C. v. New Brunswick (Attorney General) (1996), supra. As noted above, the Court concluded that it would be "untenable" to argue that section 2(b) would entitle the public to have access to "all venues within which the criminal law is administered." The Court described this argument as a "fallacy" because it fails to recognize the distinction between courts, which have been public areas since "time immemorial", and other venues such as jury rooms, a trial judge's chambers and conference rooms, which have traditionally been private. (Order # PO-1779)

Part (a) and (b)

• A report to the Deputy Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner concerning an investigation into the Criminal Code and the Narcotic Control Act concerns "policing" under part "a" of the definition and also meets the definition of law enforcement under part "b". (Order #P-932)

Part (b)--Law Enforcement Investigations and Inspections

The Following are Law Enforcement Activities:

• Enforcement records maintained by the Family Support Plan Branch (Order #P-589);

• Investigations by the Human Rights Commission into complaints under the Ontario Human Rights Code (Orders #P-89, P-178, P-200, P-208, P-221, P-242, P-253, P-258, P-322, P-330, P-363, P-403, P-449, P-466, P-492, P-507, P-616, P-973, P-981)

• Investigations regarding enforcement of the Employment Standards Act (Order #P-94)

• Investigations in respect of the enforcement of the Apprenticeship and Tradesmen's Qualifications Act (Orders #P-136, P-137);

• The investigation of an Eligibility Review Officer regarding the requester's right to certain social welfare benefits could lead to a sanction such as an assessment of overpayment or the withholding of benefits. (Order #P-139, P-963, P-967, P-969, M-633). However, an investigation conducted solely with a view to recovering an overpayment of benefits does not qualify as law enforcement since recovery of money is not a penalty or sanction imposed by a court or tribunal. (Order #M-1175) See also Privacy Investigation Report #I95-031M

• A city's property standards and by-law enforcement processes (Orders #M-4, M-10, M-34, M-181, M-244, M-560, M-575, M-582, M-513, M-630)

• An investigation in respect of a possible offence under the Liquor Licence Act (Order #P-338);

• Investigations conducted by the Ministry of Health's Investigation Unit into allegations of fraud involving the Ontario health care system.(Order #P-1078)

• The Ontario Police Commission is a "tribunal" as referred to in the definition of "law enforcement." (Orders #P-285, P-372, P-482, M-223, P-626, M-366, M-422)

• Records regarding the activities of the Ontario Provincial Police Tactical Response Unit (TRU Team) in respect of the investigation of a motor vehicle accident were "law enforcement" records. (Orders #P-482, M-366);

• Investigations under the Insurance Act are law enforcement proceedings. The Superintendent of Insurance has the powers of a tribunal, which may impose a penalty or sanction. (Orders #P-302, P-304, P-452, P-1439)

• Investigations or inspections under the Ontario Drug Benefit Act and the Prescription Drug Cost Regulation Act lead or could lead to proceedings in a court or tribunal where a penalty or sanction could be imposed. (Order #P-324);

• The Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations conducts investigations into alleged breaches of the Bailiffs Act. These investigations may lead to prosecutions for offences. (Order #P-478);

• The Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) engages in "law enforcement." Its investigations could lead to proceedings before the OSC or the courts where penalties may be imposed under the Securities Act. (Orders #P-30, P-452, P-548, P-583, P-677);

• Investigations conducted by the Pension Commission of Ontario under s.106 of the Pension Benefits Act (PBA) are law enforcement investigations. The Superintendent of Pensions has broad investigatory and enforcement powers in this regard and breaches of the Pension Benefits Act, its regulations or orders are offences that could lead to proceedings in a court where penalties could be imposed. (Orders #P-542, P-543);

• Part VIII of the Environmental Protection Act deals with sewage systems and contains an offence section. Under s.77(6) the director has the authority to revoke a certificate of approval, which results in the nullification of the use permit. Section 78 prohibits the use of a sewage system without a use permit. Breaches of Part VIII of the Act, its regulations, orders or failure to comply with any term or condition of a certificate of approval constitutes an offence under s.83 of the Act. (Order #M-268);

• The Public Complaints Commission has the statutory authority to call a Board of Inquiry to adjudicate on the substance of allegations of police misconduct. The Board of Inquiry is empowered under the Police Services Act to impose penalties or sanctions on officers found to have engaged in unlawful conduct. (Order #P-659);

• Investigations conducted by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations regarding contraventions under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act are law enforcement investigations. Individuals who are refused registration may appeal to the Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal. Failure to abide by a decision of the Registrar of Real Estate and Business Brokers is an offence. (Order #P-701);

• Inspections and investigations under the Ontario Building Code Act and the Ontario Building Code (Order #M-364).

• Investigations or inspections under the Collection Agencies Act which could lead to proceedings before a court or tribunal, the Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal, are law enforcement activities. (Order #P-952)

• Investigations under the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act qualify as law enforcement matters.(Order #P-1098)

• Law enforcement activities include investigations conducted under the Gaming Control Act regarding the terms and conditions of a license to hold charitable gambling activities, and investigations into applications to licenced as gaming suppliers. Such investigations lead or could lead to proceedings in a court or tribunal (e.g. Commercial Registration Tribunal). (Orders P-1181, P-1399)

• Investigations by the Ministry of the Attorney General's Special Investigations Unit constitute law enforcement activities under this section. The SIU enforces and regulates compliance with the Police Services Act (PSA). Under the PSA it has the authority to conduct an independent investigation, lay an information against a police officer and refer the matter to a Crown Attorney for prosecution. (Order #P-1462)

• Investigations under the Ontario Health and Safety Act are law enforcement matters.(Order #P-1527)

The Following are not Law Enforcement Activities:

• A forensic investigation which was carried out at the request of the City with the results relayed back to the City and not to the police or other law enforcement authorities was not law enforcement. (Order #M-521)

• While police cellular telephone bills in their complete unsevered form contain information which relates to law enforcement within the meaning of this section, the account and invoice numbers alone do not relate to the law enforcement activities of the police. (Order #M-552)

• An investigation conducted solely with a view to recovering an overpayment under S.17 of the Family Benefits Act does not qualify as law enforcement since recovery of money is not a "penalty or sanction" imposed by a "court or tribunal". (Privacy Investigation Report #I95-031M)

• Investigations carried out by police on behalf of the Coroner under the Coroner's Act. (Order #M-818)

• An internal investigation under the Ministry of Correctional Services Act does not fall within the definition of law enforcement.(Order #P-1324)

• An investigation conducted by a college that resulted in a notice of trespass being served on a student is not "law enforcement." The investigation was conducted to determine whether to revoke the student's registration and bar his entry to the school. (Order #P-377)

• Complaints about the conduct of Ministry of Correctional Services staff do not relate to the ministry's law enforcement responsibilities under the Ministry of Correctional Services Act. The ministry indicated that if the allegations of misconduct had been substantiated, the police would have been involved prior to the laying of any criminal charges. In this case, the police were not called and the investigation is properly characterized as an internal investigation that was not conducted by the institution as enforcer or regulator. The records are therefore not characterized as "law enforcement." (Order #P-399)

• Where an institution is conducting an internal investigation, and not one that relates to its external regulatory activity, the records are not characterized as "law enforcement." The institution is not in the position to enforce any offence following the investigation. (Re Solicitor General of Ontario et al. v. Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner et al., (1993), 102 D.L.R. (4th) 602 (Ont. Div. Ct.))

• Where a record was prepared in the course of a supervisor's internal investigation into the conduct of an officer of the court, it was not an investigation that carried with it the possibility of a "law enforcement" proceeding. (Order #P-392)

• An internal investigation of a teacher by a Board of Education was for the purpose of disciplining the individual and not for a law enforcement purpose. Neither the police nor the Children's Aid Society had investigated the matter or received records in this regard. (Order #M-328)

"PERSONAL INFORMATION"

(see also ss.2(2), which states that "personal information" does not include information about an individual dead for more than 30 years.)

• Events occurring in the work environment that are not related to an individual's job will generate actions and responses that the IPC is likely to consider personal in nature. In this case, information pertaining to the actions of employees at the time of, or in connection to, a fire in the workplace qualified as personal information. (PO-1983)

GENERAL

The List of Examples is Not Exhaustive

• Even where resumes are severed, the remaining information dealing with work skills, education levels and related data may be personal information because it may identify an individual. As a result, severing resumes must be very extensive to anonymize personal information. (Orders #P-328, P-159, MO-1444)

• Five individuals competed for a position. Disclosure of all five candidates' test scores, even with the names removed, would reveal personal information about an identifiable individual, namely the successful candidate. However, if the successful candidate's test score results are severed, along with the names of all five affected persons and the dates of their interviews, this would successfully remove all information referable to any identifiable individual. Unlike resumes which would be extremely difficult to anonymize, test scores themselves, without any linkage to the identity of the candidates, are simply a set of numbers and, absent evidence to the contrary, such raw numbers do not constitute personal information. Rather, a record severed in this manner would no longer contain any "personal information", as defined by section 2(1) of the Act (Order # MO-1444)
  
  
• Because the word "including" is used in the definition of "personal information," the list of examples is not exhaustive. "Personal information" may also include matters not reflected in clauses 2(1)(a) to (h) of the definition. (Orders #P-11, P-97, M-539)



• A note to a Crown attorney containing the names of those accused and Crown witnesses is "personal information." (Order #P-39)



• Names of lottery winners are "personal information." (Orders #P-180, P-181)



• A list of named employees of an institution who were assaulted in the course of their duties contains personal information. (Order #M-121)



• The name, occupation, business telephone number, gender, race, height, weight, hair colour and condition of a witness who was interviewed regarding an investigation into a criminal offence is "personal information" of the witness. Information provided by the witness is the personal information of the witness, the affected person and the complainant. (Order #M-84)



• Reliance on the definition of personal information to include deceased persons (unless they have been deceased longer than 30 years) is not contingent on whether or not the deceased person has a personal representative appointed. The Commission found that to suggest that a deceased person must be represented by a personal representative would be an uneven and unfair application of the Act's privacy protection provisions regarding deceased persons, favouring those whose circumstances warrant the appointment of a personal representative. (Order #P-945)



• Information concerning an individual's involvement in partisan activities outside the employment context is properly characterized as personal information since it is about the individual. However, when carry out official responsibilities in the Premier's office, even political staff are acting in official capacity and information about those activities is not personal information. (Order# PO-1725)




"Recorded Information"




• Oral comments that have not been recorded do not come within the definition of "personal information and cannot be accessed by a request under the Act." (Orders #P-17, P-19, P-99, P-196, M-33)



• Personal information includes videotape records or photographs of an individual. (Privacy Investigation Reports #I93-020P, I94-009M)



• A deleted e-mail that is not capable of being reproduced by means of computer hardware or software or information storage equipment and technical expertise normally used by the institution is arguably not a record.(Order # P-1259)




"Individual"




• The reference to "individual" in the definition of "personal information" is a reference to a natural person, i.e., not to a corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship or trade union. (Orders #P-16, P-53, P-113, P-394, M-224, P-677, M-340, M-430, M-958)



• Buildings may be owned by individuals or business entities. Where the owner or builder is an individual, the name and address qualify as personal information; where the owner or builder is a business entity, the names and business addresses are not personal information. (Order #M-138)



• The name of residential care facilities, their addresses and phone numbers do not contain "personal information." The fact that disclosure of the type of facility, as being either a children's or young offender residence, could enable an individual to discern personal information about the residents does not mean that the information being disclosed is "personal information" under the Act. This information relates solely to a service provided by a business entity and does not contain "personal information." (Order #M-195)



• The property tax arrears of an individual is personal information.(Order #M-800)




About an "Identifiable" Individual




• If there is a reasonable expectation that the individual can be identified from the information, then such information qualifies as "personal information" under the definition. Therefore, even where the name, address and telephone number is removed from letters sent by an individual to oppose the leasing of a particular plot of land, the remaining information could reasonably identify an individual. (Orders #P-230, P-401, P-774, M-438, M-570, M-585, P-952, P-975, M-791, P-1208)



• Current salary information alone, without information respecting identity, does not fall within the definition of "personal information"; however, where only one individual holds a position and there is a record of that person's salary, that record is "personal information" because it is recorded information about an identifiable individual. (Orders #P-61, M-5, P-1236)



• Where an institution alleges that the disclosure of certain revenues and expenditures in a budget contains personal information, it must provide verification of this. In this case the amount paid for salaries was anonymized. The institution stated that individuals who were knowledgeable about the salaries could discern which salary was paid to whom. In the absence of verification, the Commission found that the allegation was speculative and ruled that the information was not "personal information." (Order #P-488)



• Health card version codes that appear on health cards and which identify whether or not the health card is a replacement card must be considered in light of the unique health insurance number which is a unique identifier. Consequently, the version code number is "personal information." (The Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Health v. Anita Fineberg, Inquiry Officer, et al., June 24, 1994, Ontario Divisional Court, overturning Order #P-590)



• Employees' names and any other information pertaining to them as contacts or witnesses in the context of an internal investigation is their personal information. (Order #M-521)



• The number of overtime hours paid and banked in respect of a certain program was held to be "personal information." The Commission noted that the information was, as it turned out, only referrable to one individual and that there would be a reasonable expectation that the information could be linked with that individual. (Order #M-438)



• Even though individuals may not be mentioned by name in a operational review of an institution, the description of job categories and responsibilities was sufficiently detailed to allow for the drawing of accurate inferences of the identities of individuals. Because this information served as the personal identifier, it met the definition of personal information. (Order #M-480)



• Any information which relates directly or indirectly to an individual or a matter which involves the individual could be considered personal information for the purposes of a request and for determining fees. Thus where the police were asked for all information related to a charge laid against an individual, all the information kept in this regard is the individual's personal information even where some of the pages only indirectly relate to the individual or his or her matter. (Order #M-514)



• References to an individual made solely for the purpose of relating the record to a relevant file, nonetheless connected him to an investigation into his activities and therefore constituted his personal information. (Order #M-521)



• In this case an unsigned letter sent to a named City Councillor was held to be personal information. The subject matter of the letter was such that the Commission held that the identity of the writer could be determined. (Order #M-570)



• The names, home addresses and telephone number of volunteers who work for charities regarding Nevada lotteries is personal information. (Orders #M-663, M-708)



• A settlement agreement which resolved a human rights complaint laid against the requester and other individuals was held to contain the requester's personal information even though the requester was not referred to by name in the records, and was not a signatory or party to the settlement. (Order #P-1167)



• An individual's name and summary of alleged criminal activities qualifies as personal information. Even if the name appears alone, without specific references to this individual but recorded in the context of a criminal investigation, brings this information within the definition of personal information. (Order #MO-1192)



• The Commission did not accept the institution's argument that because records are related to the prosecutions of identifiable individuals, each and every piece of information within the file necessarily qualifies as their personal information. At the same time, the Commission did not accept the appellant's submission that a record which depicts an individual's body at the scene of the crime should be considered information about a place or an event as opposed to information about an individual. (Order #P-1561R)




• Photographs containing images of an individual's body qualified as personal information, however, photographs of an accident scene without an identifiable individual present were not personal information, even though they were located within the pre-trial brief prepared in relation to charges laid against named individuals. (Order #P-1561R)

• Information which outwardly pertains to a business may "in exceptional circumstances" be categorized as relating to an identifiable individual. (Order 113) MOH submitted that information about its funding of an abortion clinic was exempt because although the facility is operated by a corporation, the corporation is closely identified with an individual, and therefore the information could qualify as the individual's personal information. The Commission noted that the operator's representations did not support the ministry's position. In addition, the records "clearly related to a corporate entity, and the operator's representations are signed by a representative of the company other than the individual identified by the Ministry". The Commission also noted that as a result of its finding under s. 17(1), only a very small portion of the record was being disclosed to the appellant, and none of it "on its face" meets the requirements of the definition of personal information in the Act. (Order #PO-1695)







"Information" About an Identifiable Individual




• The names and addresses of individual landowners of designated Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest are "personal information." (Order #P-559)



• Simply because a creditor has an interest in documents about the collapse of a mortgage brokerage business, the information does not become the personal information of the creditor. An interest in the subject matter and possible outcome of events which led to the creation of the document is not sufficient, on its own, to bring the contents of the record within the definition of "personal information." (Order #P-502)



• The disclosure of the names of supply teachers who worked at a particular school over a particular period of time was "personal information" because it would reveal other personal information about the named individuals. (Order #M-292)



• In this case, a wife requested information regarding a bylaw complaint made against property she and her husband owned. The only personal information in the requested record concerned information about the requester's husband. Because the husband had confirmed with the Commission that the request was submitted by his wife on her behalf as well as his behalf, this provision did not apply.(Order #M-585)



• A letter from a Member of Provincial Parliament (MPP), containing the comments, views, opinions and suggestions of the MPP regarding the board of a local co-op are not constituency records or the personal information of the MPP. Opinions about individual board members in the letter are the personal information of the identified individuals. (Order #P-1524)



• In this case, a deceased employee's signature on official documents was considered personal information because it was going to be used to authenticate the employee's signature on their will. However, the Commission found that disclosure of the signature as it appears on the official documents would not be an unjustified invasion of privacy. (Order #MO-1194)




Records by or About Individuals Acting in Their Official Capacity

• The following passage from a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Dagg v. Canada (Minister of Finance) (1997), 148 D.L.R. (4th) 385 at 413, 415, in the context of the federal Privacy Act, captures the essence of the distinction which this office has drawn between an individual's personal, and professional or official government capacity: The purpose of these provisions is clearly to exempt [i.e., from the definition of "personal information"] only information attaching to positions and not that which relates to specific individuals. Information relating to the position is thus not "personal information", even though it may incidentally reveal something about named persons. Conversely, information relating primarily to individuals themselves or to the manner in which they choose to carry out the tasks assigned to them is "personal information". . . . . . The fact that persons are employed in government does not mean that their personal activities should be open to public scrutiny. By limiting the release of information about specific individuals to that which relates to their position, the Act strikes an appropriate balance between the demands of access and privacy. In this way, citizens are ensured access to knowledge about the responsibilities, functions and duties of public officials without unduly compromising their privacy [see Order P-1621]. In Reconsideration Order R-980015, former Adjudicator Donald Hale reviewed the jurisprudence relating to the definition of the term "personal information" as it relates to individuals associated with organizations: ... the information associated with the names of the affected persons which is contained in the records at issue relates to them only in their capacities as officials with the organizations which employ them. Their involvement in the issues addressed in the correspondence with the Ministry is not personal to them but, rather, relates to their employment or association with the organizations whose interests they are representing. This information is not personal in nature but may be more appropriately described as being related to the employment or professional responsibilities of each of the individuals who are identified therein. Essentially, the information is not about these individuals and, therefore, does not qualify as their "personal information" within the meaning of the opening words of the definition. In order for an organization, public or private, to give voice to its views on a subject of interest to it, individuals must be given responsibility for speaking on its behalf. Individuals expressing the position of an organization act simply as a conduit between the intended recipient of the message and the organization. The voice is that of the organization rather than that of the individual delivering the message. In the usual case, the views expressed are those of the organization, as opposed to the personal opinions or views of the individual within the meaning of section 2(1)(e) of the Act. Further, this information will not be considered to be "about" the individual, for the reasons set out above [emphasis in original]. . (Order # MO-1391)

 

In General, This Information is Not Personal Information



• Where individuals are named in their professional or official capacity, the names and their professional opinions are not personal information. The professional addresses and titles of these individuals are also not "personal information." For example, where employees draft reports on behalf of their employer or write letters on company letterhead, their identity is not personal information. As well, the names of individuals who write letters on behalf of an association or group are not "personal information." (Orders #P-78, P-80, P-113, P-139, P-157, P-257, P-270, P-300, P-326, P-328, P-329, P-333, P-369, P-377, M-25, M-36, M-47, M-57, M-71, M-74, M-79, M-106, M-107, M-108, M-113, M-114, M-115, P-441, M-118, M-127, M-128, P-454, P-463, P-470, P-473, P-477, P-478, P-480, P-492, P-510, P-518, P-532, M-198, M-195, M-102, P-604, M-230, M-233, P-576, P-578, M-249, M-258, M-260, M-262, P-631, P-635, P-643, P-660, P-654, M-290, P-658, P-677, P-715, M-340, M-375, P-746, M-394, P-773, P-787, P-788, M-409, M-412, P-421, M-569, P-926, P-936, P-964 )



• Comments by individuals acting in an official capacity, whether government personnel, elected officials or spokespersons for organizations are not personal information. The sensitivity of the subject matter is not a relevant factor. (Order #P-1482). Statements made as a representative of a voluntary organization are not personal information.(Order #M-1132)



• The payment or non-payment of a fee to members of a council is not determinative of whether information contained in records of the council is "personal information." Since the work of the council is to carry out the business of government, the minutes of meetings of the council ought not to be considered the personal information of the members who were so recorded. The minutes reflect the direction in which the meetings proceeded to conduct council business. The in camera nature of one of the meetings does not alter the characterization of the information related to the council members. (Order #P-787)



• The business addresses of the Chair and Vice-Chair of a Commission or of a Board of Trustees are not "personal information." (Orders #M-158, P-528)



• Information about payments made to reimburse individuals for expenses incurred during the course of carrying out their duties as public employees or co-op students does not qualify as personal information (Order #M-106). Therefore, the credit card charges for such expenses are accessible. This would include the reference number to each transaction, the cost and the name of the retailer at which the charge was incurred. (Order #M-333) As well, information about payments made to individuals who have provided services to an institution on a fee-for-service basis is not personal information (Order #M-107, M-108, M-333)



• Correspondence sent or received by a solicitor, solely in his or her capacity as the representative of a client, is not personal information of the solicitor. (Order #M-57)



• Where records about the circumstances surrounding the accidental release of an inmate from a jail contain factual information about which employees of the jail were on duty and what their tasks were, that information is not personal information about those employees. (Order #P-289)



• Where a company, during a tender, provides an institution with the names of individuals who had worked on past accounts, the names are not "personal information." The individuals are named in their professional and not their personal capacities. (Orders #P-418, P-419, P-420)



• The names and titles or affiliations of individuals consulted by an institution during a study are not personal information. The individuals were institutional employees, group presidents, managing directors or their delegates. The views and opinions were expressed in each individual's professional capacity and are not "personal" views. (Order #P-427) Similarly, where views and opinions about a program are expressed in an individual's capacity as a publicly elected official, the views and opinions do not contain personal information. (Orders #M-113, M-114, M-115)



• A letter of complaint signed by an individual in his capacity as a business proprietor was considered the individual's personal information because much of the information in the letter dealt with the business owner as an "individual" in his dealings with the institution. (Order #P-1201)



• A notebook recording of dates on which named police officers were on duty does not constitute "personal information." (Order M-223)



• The name of an analyst of blood samples taken in respect of a police investigation is not "personal information." (Order #M-249)



• Municipal councillors notes of events regarding a number of council meetings do not contain the "personal information" of the councillors. Information provided by the Councillors to investigators was provided in a professional capacity or in the execution of employment responsibilities. (Order #P-631)



• The names of individuals listed on expense claim receipts provided by employees for reimbursement by an institution were not "personal information." The names refer to individuals in their professional capacities. (Order #M-412)



• The legal fees paid by an institution on behalf of an employee who sued for libel arising out of comments made about him in the course of a prosecution did not contain "personal information" about the employee. Moreover, the personal information of other individuals was about them in their professional capacity. (Order #P-676)



• The payment or non-payment of a fee to members of a Council is not determinative of whether information contained in records of the Council is "personal information." Since the work of the Council is to carry out the business of government, the minutes of meetings of the Council ought not to be considered the personal information of the members who were so recorded. The in camera nature of one of the meetings does not alter the characterization of the information related to the Council members. (Order #P-787)



• Individuals who responded to a "Community Leader Survey" that was distributed to "community organizations, social agencies and educators" did so in their professional capacity. As such, the Commission ruled that the names of those who participated were not "personal information." (Order #P-788)



• The names of the forensic accountants and other employees of a legal firm and the City were provided in the course of executing their employment responsibilities in an investigation of a City employee. These names did not qualify as personal information. (Order #M-521)



• The name and address of the director of an association who wrote to a Minister regarding franchising was not personal information because it relates to his professional responsibilities (Order #P-946)



• Names, titles and other information about community representatives or leaders and members of the media contained in briefing notes and other records regarding their participation in public events or issues is not personal information about these individuals. Individuals in such positions decide to forego an element of their personal privacy by taking a stand on an issue of importance to them or when attending events which are covered by the press and reported in the media. (Order #P-978)



• Technical details of the scene of a motor vehicle accident and the function of police is not personal information of the individuals involved in the accident, nor is it personal information of the police officers. (Order #P-1044)



• Information about the public functions of municipal councillors is analogous to information about professional activities, and usually would not qualify as their personal information. However, information pertaining to their involvement as candidates in an election did qualify as their personal information. (Order #M-774)



• The Commission's approach has consistently found that information about normal activities undertaken by an individual in his or her employment, professional or official government capacity, including opinions developed or expressed in that capacity, is not information about that individual and is therefore not personal information. The Supreme Court's judgment in the Dagg case in no way affects the validity of this approach. (Order #P-1621)



• In order for an organization, public or private, to give voice to its views on a subject of interest to it, individuals must be given responsibility for speaking on its behalf. The views which these individuals express take place in the context of their employment responsibilities and are not, accordingly, their personal opinions with the definition of section 2(1)(e). Nor is the information about the individual. They are expressing the position of an organization, in the context of a public or private organization, and they act simply as a conduit between the intended recipient of the communication and the organization which they represent - as spokesperson for the organization, rather than an individual in a personal capacity. (Order #R-980015)



• An author speaking in an official capacity about municipal and provincial government matters is not speaking in a personal capacity. The information is not about the author within the meaning of section 2(1) personal information. Although some of the records are marked personal and confidential, this does not itself inject the requisite personal element into the information. Paragraph (f) of the definition requires that correspondence be sent by an individual in a personal capacity, as opposed to in an official government or business capacity. (Order #MO-1180)



• In affirming the decision in P-1482, the Commission found that it may be the case that by working for a particular organization, an individual's religious or political beliefs may be revealed, however, the connection is too remote, in and of itself, to bring the information within the definition of personal information.(Order #P-1482R)
  
  
• Where individuals have expressed grave personal concern about correspondence received by them from sources outside the institution, their identities in the records (which contain personal attacks and hate propaganda)are not a reflection of their professional or employment capacity but are, rather about them personally and thus qualify as personal information. Further, records containing names and addresses of members of the public who have written to the government, or identify individuals who have allegedly distributed hate propaganda qualify as personal information. (Order #P-1482R)



• The reasons for an employee of the Premier's Office meetings with the Government Members Services (GSM) Office are directly related to his professional responsibilities and do not qualify as the personal information of the employee or GSM employee. (Order# PO-1725)



• Entries relating to meetings between an employee of the Premier's Office and particular MPPs, as well as meetings held with caucus or one of the caucus committees relate to the employee's professional capacity and cannot be characterized as personal. Similarly, entries relating to meetings between the employee and officials of private sector organizations are not personal information. (Order# PO-1725)







The Exceptions: This Information May be Personal Information