On November 27th, the IPC/Ontario held that a request for twelve years of electronic data on incidents involving houses used for illegal marijuana grow operations and/or clandestine labs was not a request for “records” because the required production process would “unreasonably interfere” with the operations of the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services. As it has done successfully before, MCSCS argued that the security sensitive nature of its data precluded outsourcing. In this case, MCSCS also successfully argued that its data was not structured in a manner that allowed for production without a manual review for responsiveness; at an estimated 10 minutes per record for review, the request would have taken at least 2334 hours to answer.
All About information
A legal blog about privacy and access to information, protection of confidential business information, libel and slander and the law of production. It is authored by five lawyers from Hicks Morley, a Toronto-based management-side human resources law and advocacy firm. Please read the Disclaimer below.
- Arbitrator issues helpful video surveillance award
- Arbitrator demands more of employer in excluding e-mails from work system
- With CASL, a little due diligence goes a long way
- BCCA affirms order requiring Google to render domains unsearchable
- Ontario decision suggests corporation can sue for breach of privacy
- Reasonable necessity not enough to justify collection under Ontario’s public sector statutes
- Ontario arbitration award addresses remedy for privacy violation
- Alberta OIPC lacks power to compel production to resolve solicitor-client privilege appeals
- Arbitrator dismisses privacy breach grievance based on actions of a snooping employee
- IPC Ontario says a disclosure on the internet is just another disclosure
Posts. The views expressed here are solely the authors' and should not be attributed to Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie LLP or its clients. The material and information provided on this website are for general information only and should not, in any respect, be relied on as legal advice or opinion. The authors make no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of any information linked or referred to or contained herein. No person should act or refrain from acting in reliance on any information found on this website or blog, without first retaining counsel and obtaining appropriate professional advice from a lawyer duly licensed to practice law in the relevant jurisdiction. These materials do not constitute legal advice and do not create a lawyer-client relationship between you and any of the authors or Hicks Morley. The authors act only on behalf of management. They welcome management-side inquires, but interested persons should not send any information about their matters to the authors in initial communications and before they have had a chance to complete a conflict check. Comments. Comments published on this site do not reflect the views of the authors or Hicks Morley.