Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to FOIP, Chapter 3, Access to Records. Updated 5 May 2023. 170 The fact that an applicant is the legal decision-maker for a minor does not automatically entitle the applicant to the minor’s personal information. The head must determine if the exercise of the rights and powers by the legal decision-maker would be an unreasonable invasion of the minor’s privacy. Some minors have the capacity to exercise their own access and privacy rights under FOIP. They may be considered mature minors and disclosure of their personal information to a legal decision-maker may not be appropriate. Even though FOIP does not include an express requirement to consider if a child is a mature minor, it is recommended that local authorities do so. For more on this see my offices blog, UPDATED: Who Signs for a Child? Applying this approach, the head should use their discretion to enable the exercise of rights by the minor “understands the nature of the right or power and the consequences of exercising the right or power.” Some factors to consider are maturity, economic status (i.e., self-supporting, or not), living arrangements and mental state.292 Social workers, teachers and guidance counsellors can run into this problem. Parents may want all the information, but that information could include information on pregnancy, drug addiction, sexually transmitted disease, contemplated suicide, contemplated leaving home or commission of a crime. In these instances, the professional involved, their supervisor or the head must consider very carefully the words “unreasonable invasion of privacy”.293 If the child verbally or in writing tells the professional that the child has shared the information in confidence and does not want his or her parents to know, it is important that the professional takes that into consideration in determining whether there would be an “unreasonable invasion of privacy” when disclosing the information to a legal decision-maker. Where the head determines it is not an unreasonable invasion of privacy, the legal decisionmaker can sign on behalf of the child. IPC Findings In Investigation Report 083-2022, the Commissioner investigated an alleged breach of privacy involving St. Paul's Roman Catholic Separate School Division #20 (St. Paul’s). The complainant was the mother of two children. The complainant alleged that disclosure of the children’s personal information to the children’s stepmother was a breach of the children’s privacy. Part of that investigation involved considering the equivalent provision (subsection 49(d)) of The 292 SK OIPC Investigation Report 083-2022 at [44]. 293 SK OIPC Blog, UPDATED: Who Signs for a Child? February 15, 2018.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==