Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The dispute focused on whether the Ministry of Education lawfully withheld personal and professional information under section 29(1) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA).

• Withheld details included names, professional email addresses, and cell phone numbers of public servants and educational institution employees.

• The Information and Privacy Commissioner had recommended broader disclosure, but the Ministry maintained redactions for information not publicly available.

• The court found section 29(1) of FIPPA to be a mandatory exemption for personal information unless publicly available or consent is provided.

• The Ministry’s evidence was deemed sufficient to justify redactions, making an in camera review unnecessary.

• The appeal was dismissed with no costs awarded.

Background and facts

Mr. Randolph Dean Schiller filed an access to information request with the Ministry of Education, seeking all communications between the Holy Family Roman Catholic Separate School Division #140 and the Ministry regarding COVID-19 and related terminology for the period from January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021. The Ministry identified 452 pages of records, withholding information on 88 pages—some in part and others in full—citing several statutory exemptions under FIPPA, including sections 17, 18, 19, and 29.

Dissatisfied with the redactions, Mr. Schiller requested a review by the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The Commissioner recommended that most of the withheld information be released, except for some personal information. The Ministry partially complied, disclosing more records but continuing to withhold certain personal and professional details, particularly where the information was not publicly available.

Policy terms and statutory clauses at issue

The Ministry’s main justification for withholding information was section 29(1) of FIPPA, which prohibits disclosure of personal information without the individual’s consent, unless an exception applies. The withheld information included names, professional email addresses, and cell phone numbers of public servants and employees of educational institutions. The Ministry argued this information was not publicly available and thus fell within the mandatory exemption. The Commissioner’s review found the Ministry had not justified all of its redactions under the cited exemptions but agreed that some personal information could be withheld.

Court’s analysis and reasoning

Mr. Schiller appealed the Ministry’s continued refusal to disclose all requested information. The court clarified that an appeal under section 58 of FIPPA is a de novo hearing, requiring a fresh assessment based on the evidence. The court outlined a two-stage process: first, determining whether an in camera review of the withheld records is necessary, and second, if warranted, reviewing the records and making an order.

In this case, the court found the Ministry’s affidavit evidence sufficiently explained why the withheld information was not publicly available and why disclosure would compromise individual privacy. The court emphasized that section 29(1) is a mandatory exemption designed to protect personal privacy, a value recognized as fundamental in Canadian law. The court also noted that professional information, such as work email addresses and phone numbers, can only be disclosed if publicly available, which was not the case here.

Outcome and costs

The court exercised its discretion and determined that an in camera review was unnecessary, as the Ministry’s evidence clearly justified the redactions. As a result, Mr. Schiller’s appeal was dismissed at the first stage of the analysis. The court made no order as to costs, as the Ministry had not requested them. The outcome favored the Ministry of Education, which successfully maintained its refusal to disclose the remaining personal and professional information, and no monetary award was made in this decision.