Guide to LA FOIP-Chapter 2

Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, CHAPTER 2, Administration of LA FOIP. Updated 2 March 2023. 13 IPC Findings In Review Report LA-2013-004, the Commissioner found that the Northern Village of Pinehouse failed to provide a proper section 7 notice in accordance with LA FOIP. The Commissioner also found that it failed to respond appropriately to the Commissioner when notified that a formal review was underway. The Commissioner recommended the Village issue a compliant section 7 response to the applicant. Further, the Commissioner recommended the Ministry of Justice, which had administrative responsibility for LA FOIP, in consultation with the Ministry of Government Relations ensure the Village had proper delegation powers for a Privacy Officer, the Privacy Officer receive a clear job description and appropriate training and that appropriate policies and procedures be implemented for compliance with LA FOIP. The former Commissioner also recommended the Minister of Justice and Attorney-General consider prosecution pursuant to subsection 56(3) of LA FOIP. In Review Report LA-2014-001, the Commissioner found the Village of Killaly was in contravention of LA FOIP as it failed to provide a proper section 7 response to the applicant. Further, the Commissioner found that the Village failed to respond appropriately to the Commissioner when notified that a formal review was underway. The Commissioner recommended that, within 15 days, the Village clarify if the Mayor will retain responsibility for LA FOIP or if some or all responsibility would be formally delegated to other officers of the Village pursuant to section 50. The Commissioner also recommended the Village issue a compliant section 7 response to the applicant and ensure that those individuals with responsibility for LA FOIP receive a clear job description and appropriate training. Further, the Commissioner recommended the Village ensure that appropriate policies and procedures are implemented for compliance with LA FOIP. Finally, the Commissioner recommended that the Minister of Justice and Attorney-General consider prosecution pursuant to subsection 56(3) of LA FOIP with respect to the refusal of the Village to comply with a lawful requirement of the Commissioner. In Review Report 036-2016, the Commissioner found that the Northern Village of Pinehouse did not comply with section 7 of LA FOIP and therefore, pursuant to subsection 7(5) of LA FOIP, the Village was deemed to have refused access to the records requested. The Commissioner recommended that the Village release the responsive records. The Commissioner noted that there were six other reviews underway involving similar issues with the Village (See 106-2016, 171-2016, 040-2016 and 037-2016). In Review Report 143-2017, the Commissioner found that the Reeve (as head) of the Rural Municipality of Blaine Lake #434 did not respond to the applicant within the legislated timeline of 30 days and as such failed to meet the obligations under section 7 of LA FOIP. The

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==