• Disclosure of personal information such as payments received, social insurance number, date of birth and address regarding an application for a government loan to credit reporting agencies was in compliance with this provision. This personal information was disclosed for the purposes of updating or making the necessary credit investigations or credit reporting as stated in the notice of collection of personal information. (Privacy Query #Q94-004P)

• The disclosure of the complainant's medical information by the school board's physician to the Assistant Superintendent in order to determine the complainant's fitness for work was in compliance with the Act, however the complainant's privacy would be better protected if the physician disclosed the report to the complainant so that she could review and comment on the report before it was sent to the Assistant Superintendent. (Privacy Investigation Report #I94-001M)

• Where a member of the public had written to a Minister of the Crown concerning taxes that had been levied on his property, disclosure of that information was not within this provision. The ministry would have compiled or obtained the individual's personal information to maintain administrative records or correspondence files about the individual and his property. The Commission found that the individual could not have "reasonably expected" that the specific details collected by the ministry for its files about him would subsequently be disclosed in a Minister's letter to a third party. (Privacy Investigation Report #I94-011P)

• The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (OCCPS) informed a complainant that it did not have the jurisdiction to undertake an investigation and did not investigate the complaint. The OCCPS, however, investigated a similar complaint and the complainant believed that during that investigation, the OCCPS disclosed to the Police Chief and to two other individuals including the person who had filed the similar complaint that she had also complained about the Police. When the complainant was informed the OCCPS would not be investigating her complaint, her reasonable expectation would likely have been that her involvement was over. The Commission held that the complainant's identity was not disclosed for the purpose for which it had been obtained or compiled, nor for a consistent purpose. Therefore the disclosure was not in compliance with section 42(c). (Privacy Investigation Report #I94-009P)

• In the absence of a policy that specifically stated that employees were not permitted to use the office fax machine for personal matters, and given some government institutions permit personal use of fax machines, an employee could not have reasonably expected that the office fax machine was only for business matters. Accordingly, she could not have reasonably expected that her personal information concerning her use of the fax machine would be disclosed to her supervisor by the recipient of the fax , namely an employee from another ministry. The Commission noted that this issue could have been addressed without the use of personal identifiers. (Privacy Investigation Report I95-081P)

ss.(d)

• A municipal council resolution that authorized the disclosure of a list of welfare recipients from the Welfare Administrator to the council to address the councillors' "previously expressed interest and concern" regarding social assistance expenditures was insufficient to satisfy the requirements of this subsection. This provision required that the sharing of personal information within an institution be based on more than an interest or concern; it required evidence that the disclosure was needed and necessary. Since it failed to comply with this provision, the council's resolution was illegal and need not be obeyed. (H.(J) v. Hastings (County), (1993) 12 M.P.L.R. (2d) 40 (Ont.Ct.Gen. Div.))

• Names and addresses of individuals who have made requests for general records under the Act should not be communicated within an institution other than to staff of the institution's Freedom of Information and Privacy office. (Privacy Investigation Report #I94-030M)

• In this case, the MFIPPA coordinator violated this subsection because he disclosed the name, address and unlisted telephone number of a requester to a staff member charged with finding the requested record. The staff person did not need this information in order to locate the requested records. (Privacy Investigation Report #I94-030M)

• Although the requester did not make reference to MFIPPA, he did request that his name be kept confidential. When the coordinator disclosed his name to staff so they could retrieve the responsive records, the coordinator was not in accordance with this section.(Privacy Investigation Report #I94-045M)

ss.(e)

• The disclosure of an employee's personal information by a District Health Council to the Ministry of Health was not in compliance where it included job performance information. The District Health Council stated that the information in question was disclosed to comply with an Order-in-Council advising the Minister of Health on the planning and co-ordination of health services in its designated area. The Council further stated that the co-ordination of health services is accomplished in part by the work of the Executive Director and any decision to terminate the Executive Director affects the co-ordination of health services. The Commission found that the word "complying" in section 42(e) indicates that the requirement in question must be mandatory in nature. In other words, in order for this section to apply, the Order-in-Council must impose a duty on the Council to disclose the complainant's personal information. While the Ministry was the funding agency for the Council and special budget requirements may have been needed by the Council in order to pay severance to the employee, the Commission was not persuaded that the funding relationship required the disclosure of specific personal information including an allegation of termination. (Privacy Investigation Report #I94-023P)

• Subsection 42(12) of the Workes' Compensation Act requires the Workes' Compensation Board to send a copy of the Non Economic Loss Assessment to the accident employer. Thus, the disclosure complied with this provision. Privacy Investigation Report #I93-037P )

• This provision provided for the disclosure of the contents of a child's Ontario Student Record to their parents under the Education Act .(Privacy Investigation Report #I93-028M)

• Sections 104 and 105 of the Municipal Elections Act do not authorize a municipality to disclose copies of Appointment of Voting Proxy forms that are retained by the municipal Clerk. (Privacy Investigation Report #I94-080M)

ss.(g)

• For this section to apply, the disclosure must be in aid of the investigation undertaken. Since the institution did not initiate an investigation into the complaint, the Commission was of the view that disclosure of a complainant's name would not have aided an investigation into her complaint. (Privacy Investigation Report #I94-009P)

ss.(i)

• This provision is not applicable to a determination as to whether personal information may be disclosed as a result of an access request. The Commission also held that the wording of this provision was not applicable to the disclosure of personal information about the deceased's criminal convictions to his daughter. (Order #P-679)