|
|
 |
| s.47 |
SUMMARY OF ORDERS/PRIVACY REPORTS |
s.36 |
-
A request for access to personal information about the requester, or for information which
is personal information about both the requester and another individual, should be considered
under this section and s.49 [FIPPA] \ s.38 [MFIPPA]. (Order #P-371)
ss.(1)(b)
-
This provision does not contravene the Charter in ss.7 and 11(d). Even
though the requested
information was a Crown brief deriving from a prosecution, s.11(d) of the Charter did not
apply in this context because proceedings under the Act are not in respect of an individual
"charged with an offence." The appellant also failed to establish why s.7 of the Charter was
contravened. (Order #P-743)
ss.(2)
- The term "correction" incorporates three elements: the information in issue must be personal and private; the information must be inexact, incomplete or ambiguous; and the correction cannot be a substitution of opinion. (Orders #P-186, P-321, P-382, M-201, M-234, M-227, P-674, M-341, P-947, M-508, M-1438)
- The Commission agreed that even though there were fraudulent claims on an appellant's OHIP claims payment history, as an accounting record it was not inexact because the provider did bill the ministry for the amounts and services which he claimed to have provided and was reimbursed for these services. However, because the inaccurate claims erroneously indicated that the appellant had undergone treatments such as sensitive psychiatric evaluations, and because the OHIP Claims payment record is often used for purposes other than "accounting", the Commission Ordered that any claims determined to be fraudulent be transferred to a separate database for fraudulent claims. (PO-1881-I)
- Issues regarding access to the responsive records should be determined before
addressing the
issue of correction (Order #M-1077)
-
The term "correction" incorporates three elements: the information in issue
must be personal
and private; the information must be inexact, incomplete or ambiguous; and the correction
cannot be a substitution of opinion. (Orders #P-186, P-321, P-382,
M-201, M-234, M-227, P-674, M-341, P-947, M-508)
-
Where cogent evidence exists to establish the validity of a correction to attendance records,
the institution must correct the records. It is unreasonable for the institution to disregard this
evidence on the basis that it is awaiting the decision of an appeal in the matter. (Order #P-232)
-
Where errors in factual information are shown by the requester to exist in a record, the
institution should correct the information. Where a party who has been granted access to a
record disagrees with non-factual, evaluative or opinion information contained in the record,
the appropriate remedy is provided under ss.(2)(b). This provision allows the requester to
require an institution to attach a statement of disagreement to the information. The
Commission does not have the authority to order an institution to substitute one opinion
contained in a record for another, nor can it direct an institution to make changes to
information that is evaluative. (Orders #M-201, M-234)
-
The method of correction varies with the nature of the record, the method indicated by the
requester and what would be the most practical and reasonable method in the circumstances.
In this case in the absence of any indication from the requester, the institution was correct in
deleting the disputed information from the record. (Order #P-448)
-
The Commissioner's office has not been empowered to make suggested corrections,
including
deletions, to information unless the information has been demonstrated to be inexact,
incomplete or ambiguous. Where the Commission reviews the evidence and determines that
the record was believed to be accurate and complete when it was written, an order for
correction will not be made. In this case the remedy available to the requester is to request
that a statement of disagreement be attached to the personal information. (Order #M-234)
-
In this instance, the institution could not verify when the appellant had commenced a
developmental assignment. The Commission considered that the start date for the
developmental assignment was factually incorrect and that it was a matter that was factual as
opposed to opinion. However, because the Commission could not establish the date with
certainty, the institution was ordered to amend its records to state that the assignment
commenced no later than a fixed date that was capable of verification. (Order #P-674)
-
The police were not obliged to change how they organize and categorize information which
appears on their computer system. Hence, where, under the heading 'Criminal Record'
acquittals are included, this manner of keeping the information related to criminal charges is
not subject to the correction provision. The Commission accepted that law enforcement
personnel who use the records understand the phrase 'Criminal Records' to include more than
simply convictions. However, the Commission did find that the codes used by the police
regarding the charge to be factually incorrect and therefore subject to this correction
provision. In this case, the charge of assault should not have been indexed and coded under
the 'murder' designation. The Commission therefore recommended that the code be changed
to designate this offence as either 'assault' or 'other.' (Order #M-341)
-
In this case the police were asked to "correct" portions of an occurrence report
that described
the requester's actions. The police report quoted the complainant's statement about the
requester's actions and as a result the Commission found that it was unreasonable to require
the police to delete all false statements made to them. As long as the police accurately
recorded the information as it was provided to them the right of correction did not apply.
(Order #M-440, M-722)
-
To determine whether or not a correction to a record should be made, the information must
be inexact, incomplete, or ambiguous. In this order, the Commission ruled that the difference
must be more than just one of semantics. (Order #M-508). Further, the information must be
about the requester, not other individuals. (Order #M-722)
-
Where an employee had certified a recent skills assessment and the assessment was shown to
be accurate, the ministry was not required to replace it with a new assessment that the
employee felt more accurately reflected her skills. (Order #P-947)
- Information
obtained from health care professionals and probation and parole officers acting in their
professional capacities cannot be said to be "incorrect" if they simply reflect
information
gathered, whether or not this information was true or whether the appellant agreed with the views
set out in the records. (Order #P-1478)
|
|
|
OCIPO 