Did Motor Vehicles disclose a name and work telephone number without authority?
A Yukon Government employee complained that Motor Vehicles made an unauthorized disclosure on or about June 30, 2011 of her name and work telephone number to a Yukon Government Security Guard. The Complainant alleged that Motor Vehicles disclosed her personal information to a Security Guard who sought the information to advise her that she needed to move her vehicle from the Whitepass Yukon Government
employee parking lot because of a downtown event.
Is a copy of a birth certificate required to enroll in an extended health care benefits program?
On May 27, 2014, the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) received a complaint from a Complainant who wished to remain anonymous. The complaint was that the Public Body attempted to collect a copy of the Complainant’s birth certificate contrary to the requirements of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (ATIPP Act). The Public Body requested production of a copy of the birth certificate to enroll the Complainant, a common-law spouse of a Yukon Government employee, on the Great West Life Assurance Company (Great-West Life) extended health care benefits. The Complainant refused to provide a copy of her birth certificate to the Public Body.
Does a public body have authority to grant a time extension after missing the response deadline?
The IPC found the Records Manager of the Department did not have authority to decide to extend the time to respond after the deadline to respond had passed and subsection 49 (2) had come into effect. Based on this finding, she found further that she had jurisdiction to conduct a review under paragraph 48 (1)(a). In conducting the review, the IPC found that the Department had no authority under sections 24 or 25 to refuse access to the records or part thereof requested by the Applicant and recommended the Public Body give the Applicant these records.
Incomplete reponses to an information request impact decision making
On February 28, 2014, the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) received two complaints from the Complainant in relation to two letters of response she received from the Records Manager to her ATIPP Requests #A-5120 and #A-5148 (Access Requests). In her complaint, the Complainant identified that she was unable to determine from the Responses and records received:
*if complete records or information from records was withheld,
*what records or information was withheld pursuant to subsection 25 (1),
*why subsection 25 (1) applies to the records or information withheld, and
*why these records or information was withheld.
The Applicant made a request under the Access to Information Protection of Privacy Act to the Department for access to all communications resulting from a letter written to the Minister of Energy Mines and Resources about a specific land disposition. The Department provided some of the records in their entirety but severed information in others citing the solicitor client privilege exception under section 18 (a) of the Act for the severing.
Request for materials related to segregation reviews at the Whitehorse Correctional Centre
Having decided that a response of "no record found" is not a decision under the Act to refuse to give access then the conclusion in this case must be that there has not been a refusal by the Public Body to grant access to records. This begs the question of what an applicant can do if he or she feels the Public Body has not been diligent in its search or is not credible in saying a record cannot be found.
