Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter 6, Protection of Privacy. Updated 27 February 2023. 44 containing the name, dates and times individuals went to their workplaces is about the position and is not personal information.97 The rationale for a distinction between personal information and information that relates to a person in their professional or official capacity preserves the integrity of the regime that establishes the public’s right of access and a local authority’s disclosure obligations. Without this distinction, the routine disclosure of information by local authorities would be greatly impeded. For example, withholding all recorded information relating to the activities of public servants or other individuals in their professional or official capacities impedes LA FOIP’s overarching goal of creating accountability and transparency over local authority activities. Further, not differentiating between information that is personal in nature and information that relates to a person’s professional capacity would frustrate the purpose of LA FOIP, namely that information under the possession or control of a local authority should be made available to the public (unless subject to a limited and specific exemption).98 IPC Findings In Review Report 277-2016, the Commissioner found that employer assigned cell phone numbers for government employees was considered business card information and not personal information. Further, the Commissioner found that the same approach is taken to business cell phone numbers of non-government employees, professionals and corporate officers. In Review Reports LA-2012-002, F-2006-001 and 277-2016, the Commissioner found that the names of nurses, firefighters and lawyers were not personal information. In Review Report LA-2012-002, the Commissioner found that a position, function, responsibilities and hours of work pertained more to a job description than personal information of the individual. In Dagg v. Canada (Minister of Finance) (1997), the court decided that sign-in logs containing the names, dates and times individuals went to their workplaces constituted information about the positions and not information that was personal in nature of the employees. In Review Reports LA-2014-002, 156-2015 and Investigation Report 059-2018, the Commissioner found that signatures provided in a work-related capacity did not constitute 97 Dagg v. Canada (Minister of Finance), 1997 CanLII 358 (SCC), [1997] 2 SCR 403 at [95]. 98 Adapted from ON IPC Reconsideration Order R-980015 at pp. 9 and 10.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==