Tag: fippa

Court of Appeal affirms robust interpretation of academic freedom exclusion in Alberta

On October 28, 2025, the Court of Appeal of Alberta affirmed that the Alberta Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (the OIPC) acted unreasonably in narrowly construing the teaching and research records exclusion in the Alberta Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA).

The request and OIPC decision

The request was for information pertaining to a complaint made by two University of Calgary law professors to the Canadian Judicial Council regarding Justice Robin Camp, who resigned from the bench in 2017 after the CJC recommended his removal for comments made in hearing a sexual assault case.

The OIPC construed the teaching and research records exclusion narrowly, and expressly stated, “There is no indication in the Act that these categories are determined via balancing interests in disclosure versus academic freedom.” The disputed records included e-mail discussions among professors about what might be taught in a particular course, which the OIPC held were not “teaching materials,” which it defined as “materials the substance of which imparts knowledge, skill, or instruction.” The OIPC also held that the disputed records were not comprised of “research information” when weighed against the “systematic investigation” definition of research adopted by the Ontario IPC.

The Court of Appeal decision

The Court of Appeal identified fundamental flaws in the IPC reasoning.

First, it held that the OIPC’S reasons “simply repeat[ed] statutory language, summariz[ed] arguments made, and then stat[ed] a peremptory conclusion.” The OIPC defined the terms as capturing mostly finished products ultimately presented in classrooms or publicly shared through publications. This, it said, “renders ss 4(1)(h) and (i) largely redundant, as a FOIPPA request would serve little purpose with respect to materials already in the public domain.”

Second, it held that the OIPC “arbitrarily chose definitions of ‘teaching materials’ and ‘research information’ without engaging in the necessary statutory interpretation,” failing to explain why restrictive interpretations were preferable and failing to reckon with legislative intent. Regarding this intent, the Court drew from the important Supreme Court of Canada “Mandate Letters Case” from 2024 in stating that freedom of information statutes “engage significant competing public interests and strike an important balance between the public’s need for transparency and visibility in the conduct of public agencies and the need for confidentiality and/or privacy protection for some of those very same institutions to perform their important public functions effectively.”

Discussion about the scope of research

The parties were joined by intervenors from the Faculty Association of the University of Calgary, the Canadian Association of University Teachers, and the Canadian Association of Law Teachers, all of whom took issue with certain obiter comments made by the chambers judge that suggested a distinction between academic study of social activism and direct participation in social activism, with participation falling outside the statutory exclusion.

The Court of Appeal rejected this approach, stating:

We agree that academic freedom exists to protect all scholarship, including that which may be unpopular or politically targeted. A distinction between participation in activism and study of activism may lead to definitions of “teaching materials” and “research information” which exclude novel teaching methodologies, teaching and research activities on particular topics involving what might be construed as participation in activism, and other direct engagement in the community outside the traditional classroom setting, as well as an academic’s participation relating to responsibilities or duties at their post-secondary institution.

This is a critical clarification. The exclusion protects the process of academic work, broadly defined.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal’s decision is a decisive affirmation that academic freedom exclusions must be interpreted purposively, not formalistically. The OIPC’s narrow approach – treating these as mere carve-outs rather than affirmative protections for the academy’s core function – was fundamentally unreasonable. This approach is grounded in first principles and the Mandate Letters Case, in which Justice Karakatsanis wrote:

Freedom of information (FOI) legislation strikes a balance between the public’s need to know and the confidentiality the executive requires to govern effectively. Both are crucial to the proper functioning of our democracy.

It is therefore applicable beyond Alberta’s borders, notwithstanding the narrower view taken by Ontario IPC.

As a procedural matter, the University identified the records as teaching or research materials, so neither the University’s right of access to the records nor the question of custody and control were at issue. The matter of exclusion and a university’s entitlement to handle records and determine whether they are excluded are distinct. This case, by illustration, underscores the university entitlement.


Governors of the University of Calgary v Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2025 ABCA 350 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/kg5f3>, retrieved on 2025-11-17

Ontario (M)FIPPA institutions, file encryption, and breach notification – a hint

As most of you know, the Ontario IPC released four decisions in the summer relating to breach reporting and notification obligations under PHIPA and the CYSFA. One controversial finding (which is subject to a judicial review application) is that the encryption of files by ransomware actors triggers an unauthorized use and a loss of personal and personal health information. Given there is no risk-based threshold for reporting and notification in PHIPA, custodians and service providers must report and notify in respect of this particular kind of breach, even if the threat actors have not stolen or laid eyes on information.

Leaving legal analysis aside, I’ll say that this is odd policy that has led to odd questions about who is affected by file encryption. Do we really care? Does this have any meaning to “affected” individuals?

The negative impact is that it threatens the clarity of communications about matters that institutions need to communicate clearly: “Yes there’s been a privacy breach, but the threat actor(s) didn’t steal or view your information. And information has been “lost,” but not lost as in “stolen.” 🤦🏽‍♂️

One can honestly question whether there is any public good in this garble. The IPC has lobbied for cyber incident reporting, which this interpretation of PHIPA and the CYFSA effectively achieves. Cyber incident reporting should be brought in properly, through legislation, and leave out the notification obligation.

But how far does the finding extend?

The four decisions released in the summer left a question about how the encryption finding would apply to MFIPPA and FIPPA institutions, who are encouraged (but not yet legally required) to report and notify based on the “real risk of signficant harm” standard. This standard will become a legal imperative when the provisions of Bill 194 come into force.

On December 10, the IPC issued a privacy complaint report that addressed file encryption at an MFIPPA institution and (in qualified terms) held that notification was not required. Mr. Gayle explained:

As the affected personal information remains encrypted and the police’s investigation found no evidence of exfiltration, it is not clear whether the breach “poses a real risk of significant harm to [these individuals], taking into consideration the sensitivity of the information and whether it is likely to be misused”. As such, it is not clear whether the police should have given direct notice of the breach to affected individuals in accordance with the IPC’s Privacy Breach Guidelines.

However, I am mindful of the fact that the police provided some notice to the public about the extent of the ransomware attack, and of the investigative and remedial steps they took to address it. I am also mindful of the fact that the breach occurred more than three years ago.

For these reasons, I find that it would serve no useful purpose in recommending that the police renotify affected individuals of the breach in accordance with the IPC’s Privacy Breach Guidelines and, as a result, do not need to decide whether the breach in this case met the threshold of “real risk of significant harm to the individual”.

This is helpful guidance, and should allow MFIPPA and FIPPA institutions to respond to matters with the clearest possible communication.

Sault Ste. Marie Police Services Board (Re), 2024 CanLII 124986 (ON IPC).

Manitoba judge implores common sense approach to privacy protection

On November 11th of last year, the Manitoba Court of Kings Bench ordered the City of Winnipeg to release information sought by an FOI requester, rejecting a claim that the information constituted “personal information.”

The media requester sought access to records of breaches and penalties imposed on Winnipeg police officers for breach of police service regulations. The City recorded this information in quarterly reports without names or other direct identifiers, and routinely published the reports internally to approximately 2,000 civilian and police service members.

In answering the request, the City redacted information about penalties imposed for each violation (identified only by regulation number) under the “unjustified invasion of personal privacy” exemption. It claimed that to include penalty information would render the information personal information, the disclosure of which constituted an unjustified invasion of personal privacy. Here is the City’s re-identification risk argument:

[7] Some of the penalties in the Routine Orders are unique and significant and might be apparent to family and close friends of the member who received the penalty. If a member received a penalty of loss of days, family or close friends of the member could be aware of a change of routine because the member has reduced pay or less leave. Family or close friends who saw the penalty in combination with the timeframe on the Routine Order in which the penalty was registered might make the connection and realize that their friend or relative was investigated by their employer and what the particular charge was.

And more:

[9] Some of the charges in the Routine Orders are specific and could result in public identification of the member by that fact alone. For example, witnesses, and complainants could be aware of the circumstances that resulted in the Regulatory charge and if they saw the charge and the Routine Orders in combination with the timeframe on the Routine Order in which the penalty was registered, could then become aware of the penalty imposed.

The Court rejected this argument and found that the information was not personal information based on the well-established reasonable expectations test – a test that asks whether a proposed disclosure, in conjunction with other available information, could reasonably be expected to identify an individual. Notably, the court held that this standard imposes the same evidentiary burden articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Merck Frosst – a burden that requires proof of a non-speculative event considerably more likely than a mere possibility but not necessarily proof of an event that is likely.

Like most public sector access and privacy statutes, the Manitoba Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act does not shield personal information from the right of public access entirely – it only protects against unjustified invasions. The judge noted this, noted the City’s broad internal publication of the penalty information at issue and urged those charged with facilitating access to records to approach their task “with a healthy dose of common sense.”

Annable (CBC) v. City of Winnipeg, 2022 MBKB 222 (CanLII).

IPC upholds university vaccination policy

On April 5th, the Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario affirmed a University of Guelph requirement that students in residence for the 2021/2022 academic year be fully vaccinated.

The IPC has jurisdiction to consider whether a public body’s collection of personal information is “necessary” to a lawfully authorized activity based on the Freedom of Information and Protection of Personal Privacy Act. The necessity test has been endorsed by the Court of Appeal for Ontario as strict. Where personal information would merely be helpful to the activity, it is not “necessary” within the meaning of FIPPA. Similarly, where the purpose can be accomplished another way, a public body is obliged to chose the other route.

The IPC’s affirmation of the University’s policy (and its collection of personal information) rested heavily on a letter the University had received from the Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph Health Unit in July 2021. It said:

I am writing to recommend in the strongest possible terms that the University of Guelph require a full (two-dose) course of COVID-19 vaccines for all students living in residence during the 2021-22 school year. Additionally, the University should continue to recommend strongly that all other students, faculty and staff receive both doses of the vaccine.

Students beginning or returning to their studies this fall are looking forward to a safe and relational post-secondary experience. Adding this significant layer of protection will help create a more normal fall on campus. Strong vaccination rates across the University are an important part of student physical and mental well-being, and should contribute peace of mind to all Gryphons.

The IPC affirmation is significant not only because it supports a vaccine mandate based on the strict FIPPA necessity standard, but also because of its adoption of this letter and its reasoning. While mandates must certainly be based on science that establishes that vaccination reduces the risk of exposure, the privacy commissioners, labour arbitrators and judges who will continue to be called upon to evaluate mandates must recognize that they are also based on a need for stability and mental well-being.

We thought we were though the pandemic, and are now in Wave Six. Will there be a Wave Seven? And although the province is trying to give us the stability we all crave by committing to laissez faire policy, why should our public bodies be precluded from adopting stable, medium-term policy that prioritizes safety?

University of Guelph (Re), 2022 CanLII 25559 (ON IPC).

Understanding the Employment-Related Records Exclusion

Here is a copy of the presentation I delivered yesterday at the at the PISCC’s 2020 Ontario Connections Conference. As I told the audience, I’m a confessed FOI nerd. The exclusion is such a unique, important and misunderstood part of our Ontario FOI law that it was good to dive deep on it while in good company.

ALSO, BLG is launching a new webinar series for the provincial public sector called “nuts and bolts.” The first webinar will run in late November, please sign up here, or if you can’t attend in November and want me to put you on our mailing list please DM me.

Privacy violation arises out of failure to notify of FOI request

On September 21st, the Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario held that a municipality breached the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act by failing to notify an affected person of an FOI request.

The complainant discovered that the municipality had released e-mails he had sent to councilors about a planning matter in responding to FOI requests and without providing notice. MFIPPA requires notification of a request for records containing personal information if the head has “reason to believe” their release “might constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.”

The IPC held that the municipality had not met this requirement. It reasoned:

As indicated above, the County disclosed the complainant’s name, address and views and opinions about Hastings Drive without notifying him pursuant to section 21(1)(b). Given the nature of the complainant’s personal information at issue, in my view, the disclosure of at least some of this information might have constituted an unjustified invasion of his personal privacy.

In my view, the complainant should have been notified and given an opportunity to make representations as to why the Emails should not have been disclosed. As noted in Investigation Report MC-000019-1, except in the clearest of cases, fairness requires that the person with the greatest interest in the information, that is, the complainant, be given a chance to be heard. In this matter, he was not given that opportunity.

The complainant had sent his e-mails to politicians about a matter of apparent public interest. The standard for notification is low, but the notice requirement here was at least debatable.

Unfortunately, the IPC does not address the balancing of interests contemplated by the unjustified invasion exemption. For notice to be required there must be “a reason to believe” – a reason based on a provisional application of the unjustified invasion exemption. “Clearest of cases” is not the legal test, and it is wrong to notify simply because “at least some” information responsive to a request is bound to trigger the notification requirement.

This is a mild warning to institutions. There is a statutory immunity that offers some protection from civil claims for failure to notify, but the IPC has shown itself to be strict.

PRIVACY COMPLAINT MC17-35, 2020 CanLII 72822 (ON IPC).

FOI reconsideration order highlights important timing issue for Ontario institutions

On May 14th, the IPC/Ontario dismissed a request for reconsideration based on an asserted change of circumstances, a somewhat common happening given the lengthy period of time it now takes to process an FOI appeal.

The IPC had earlier affirmed a decision to deny access to certain information about the OPP’s use of cell site simulators on the basis that the information could reasonably be expected to “reveal investigative techniques and procedures currently in use in law enforcement.” After the IPC made this appeal decision, the requester learned that the OPP had switched to a new model of simulator, apparently after she made her request and before the IPC made its decision. The requester asked for reconsideration so she did not have to start again (by filing a new request and potentially re-arguing an appeal). The requester argued the Ministry’s exemption claim could not stand in light of the “new evidence.”

Assistant-Commissioner Liang declined the reconsideration request, but only on the basis that the newly proffered evidence would not have led her to make a different decision in any event. Assistant-Commissioner Liang noted that the Ministry had not deliberately withheld key evidence, which the IPC has treated as a basis for reconsideration. She did not comment on whether the Ministry ought to have brought forward the change in circumstances or whether its failure to do so might warrant reconsideration.

Appeal hearings are about the propriety of an access decision that is made at a point in time, though can invite respondent institutions to make representations about prospective harms. It goes without saying that institutions should not misrepresent the state of affairs in existence at the time they file their materials with the IPC. And if they have made accurate representations and the circumstances later change, there should be no duty to bring those circumstances to the attention of the IPC and no consequence for failing to do so. This would be a very heavy and impractical burden to bear, and would do harm to the finality owed to respondents. Requesters can and should be made to file new requests that can be the subject of fresh consideration and new access decisions.

Ontario (Solicitor General) (Re), 2020 CanLII 34928 (ON IPC).

OCA says Children’s Lawyer records not under MAG’s custody or control

On June 18th the Court of Appeal for Ontario held that the Ministry of the Attorney General is not in custody or control of records in a Children’s Lawyer litigation file even though the Children’s Lawyer, for administrative purposes, is part of MAG. The finding turns on the Children’s Lawyer’s independence and the privacy interests of the children it represents. These kind of contextual factors are important to the custody or control analysis. As stated by the Court, “an organization’s administrative structure is not determinative of custody or control for purposes of FIPPA.”

This decision is consistent with other law that suggests records within an institution are not always in custody or control of an institution – e.g., certain faculty records and personal e-mails. Custody or control is therefore no simple concept to administer and is prone to dispute. At least for now IPC decisions will be subject to judicial review on the correctness standard, another (surprising) finding the Court of Appeal made in rendering its decision.

Ontario (Children’s Lawyer) v. Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2018 ONCA 559 (CanLII).

 

IPC comments on use and disclosure of OSR in litigation

On June 15th, the Information and Privacy/Commissioner Ontario dismissed a privacy complaint that alleged a school board breached the Education Act and MFIPPA by producing a student’s OSR in response to his human rights application.

The Board produced the OSR and filed it in a brief of documents to be used at a pending Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario hearing, all pursuant to the Tribunal’s rules. The complainant objected, and in a preliminary hearing, the HRTO directed the complainant to consent or face dismissal of his application. The complainant did not consent, his application was dismissed and he subsequently filed a privacy complaint with the IPC.

The IPC held that MFIPPA prevails over the statutory privilege provision in the Education Act and that the IPC is therefore “not bound to consider section 266 of the Education Act in its deliberations.” It also held that the OSR was information “otherwise available” to the Board and therefore open to its use under the provision of MFIPPA that stipulates that MFIPPA “does not impose any limitation on the information otherwise available by law to a party to litigation.”

The IPC did recommend that, going forward, the Board refrain from unilaterally handling the OSR when its potential use and disclosure is in dispute: “… the Board should make efforts to seek direction from an administrative tribunal or court prior to disclosing the information contained within an Ontario School Record during the course of litigation.”

 York Region District School Board (Re), 2016 CanLII 37587 (ON IPC).

 

Reasonable necessity not enough to justify collection under Ontario’s public sector statutes

Section 38(2) is an important provision of Ontario’s provincial public sector privacy statue. It requires institutions to satisfy a necessity standard in collecting personal information. Ontario’s municipal public sector privacy statute contains the same provision.

On May 4th, the Divisional Court dismissed an Liquor Control Board of Ontario argument that the Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario had erred by applying a higher standard than “reasonable necessity” in resolving a section 38(2) issue. The Divisional Court held that the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s Cash Converters case establishes just such a standard:

The LCBO relies upon Cash Converters to support its submission that the IPC erred in not interpreting “necessary” as meaning “reasonably necessary.” However, Cash Converters does not interpret “necessary” in this way. In fact, it suggests the opposite. Arguably, something that is “helpful” to an activity could be “reasonably necessary” to that activity. Yet, the Court of Appeal makes it clear that “helpful” is not sufficient.

It’s hard to fathom a legislative intent to prohibit a practice that is, by definition “reasonable.” If the LCBO seeks and is granted leave to appeal this could lead to an important clarification from the Court of Appeal on a strict interpretation of section 38(2) that has stood for some time. The LCBO practice at issue – which involves collecting the non-sensitive information of wine club members to control against the illegal stockpiling and reselling of alcohol – is a good one for testing the line.

Liquor Control Board of Ontario v Vin De Garde Wine Club, 2025 ONSC 2537.