|
|
 |
| s.43 |
SUMMARY OF ORDERS/PRIVACY REPORTS |
s.33 |
-
Where personal information has been collected indirectly, a consistent purpose is one in
which the use or disclosure is "reasonably compatible" with the purpose for which it
was
collected. (Privacy Investigation Report #I95-008M)
-
In respect of the exemptions, the Commission confirmed that reasonable expectation of harm
required that the institution establish a clear and direct linkage between the disclosure of the
information and the harm alleged. The Commission approved of the position taken by the
Federal Court of Appeal in Canada Packers Inc. v. Canada (Minister of
Agriculture) [1989]
1 F.C. 47 at 59-60, where the Court indicated that a "reasonable expectation of probable
harm" was required. It also approved of the Federal Court Trial Division's decision in
The
Information Commissioner of Canada v. The Prime Minister of Canada, unreported,
November 19, 1992, where the Court stated that the mere "possibility" of harm was
not
sufficient. The Court held that descriptions of possible harm, even in substantial detail, are
insufficient in themselves. Justice Rothstein stated that: The Court must be given an explanation
of how or why the harm alleged would
result from disclosure of specific information. If it is self-evident as to how and why
harm would result from disclosure, little explanation need be given. Where
inferences must be drawn, or it is not clear, more explanation would be required.
The more specific and substantial the evidence, the stronger the case for
confidentiality. The more general the evidence, the more difficult it would be for
a Court to be satisfied as to the linkage between disclosure of particular documents
and the harm alleged...While the fact that the same or similar information is public
is not necessarily conclusive of the question of whether or not there is a reasonable
expectation of harm from disclosure of the information sought to be kept
confidential, the burden of justifying confidentiality, would...be more difficult to
satisfy. (Order #P-534)
- In this case, the Ministry hired a private company to
conduct a survey of clients of five of its program areas in
order to improve its services to the public. The ministry
stated that although an individual might not have assumed
that a follow up survey would be conducted, an individual
could reasonably expect that this might occur. The
Commission stated that an individual would only have such a
reasonable expectation if the ministry had informed the
individual at the outset that it might do this. (Privacy
Investigation #I98-014P)
|
|
|
OCIPO 