Edmonton (City) v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) et al., (2015) 614 A.R. 343 (QB)

• Judge: Renke, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: March 06, 2015
• Citations: (2015), 614 A.R. 343 (QB);2015 ABQB 246

Edmonton v. Privacy Commr. (2015), 614 A.R. 343 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] A.R. TBEd. AP.083

The City of Edmonton (applicant) v. Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner and H.M. Louise McCloskey (respondents)

(1403 02153; 2015 ABQB 246)

Indexed As: Edmonton (City) v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Renke, J.

April 9, 2015.

Summary:

The City of Edmonton applied for judicial review of decisions by an adjudicator appointed by the Information and Privacy Commissioner in Order F2013-53. The Order concerned a request by the applicant under Alberta's Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIPPA) for access to certain records in the City's custody or control. The adjudicator found that: (a) the information requested was "personal information" under s. 1(n) of FOIPPA and not "general information" (i.e., non-personal information) as it had been characterized by the City; (b) under s. 93(2) of FOIPPA, the City was not entitled to charge a $25 initial fee for the information because the applicant had requested personal information and the applicant only had to pay fees for the production of copies; (c) the City failed to respond to the applicant openly, accurately, and completely, as required by s. 10 of FOIPPA; and (d) the City, which had withheld information from the applicant under s. 17(i) of FOIPPA, failed to comply with that subsection because it failed to disclose the provisions of s. 17(i) on which it relied. The adjudicator also found that the City had failed to comply with s. 11 of FOIPPA by failing to make every reasonable effort to respond to the applicant's request within 30 days after receiving it. The City did not apply for review of this decision.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application. The City had not established that the adjudicator's decisions were unreasonable. The decisions fell within the range of possible, acceptable outcomes and were defensible in respect of both the facts and the law. The adjudicator's reasons were transparent and intelligible and justified the decisions made.

Crown - Topic 7101.2

Examination of public documents - General - Public body's duty to assist - See paragraphs 90 to 110.

Crown - Topic 7170

Examination of public documents - Freedom of information - Legislation - Disclosure - Personal information - See paragraphs 24 to 85.

Crown - Topic 7172

Examination of public documents - Freedom of information - Legislation - Application fees - See paragraphs 86 to 89.

Crown - Topic 7206

Examination of public documents - Freedom of information - Bars - Personal information - See paragraphs 111 to 136.

Crown - Topic 7246

Examination of public documents - Freedom of information - Judicial review and appeals - Standard of review - See paragraphs 20 to 23.

Municipal Law - Topic 1320

Freedom of information and protection of privacy - Disclosure of personal information (incl. email) - See paragraphs 1 to 136.

Words and Phrases

Personal information - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed the meaning of this phrase as found in s. 1(n) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. F-25 - See paragraphs 24 to 85.

Counsel:

David Woo (The City of Edmonton Law Branch), for the applicant;

Kate Hurlburt (Emery Jamieson LLP), for the respondent, Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner;

Louise McCloskey, self-represented respondent.

This case was heard on March 6, 2015, by Renke, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following memorandum of decision on April 9, 2015.