Order F2006-030: Summary

ORDER: F2006-030

DATE: January 16, 2008

PUBLIC BODY: Edmonton Police Service

FOIP REQUEST: The applicant, on behalf of five family members, made an access request to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) for all records related to searches about the family members that EPS members may have conducted on its PROBE and CPIC databases. The applicant also requested the names of the EPS members that conducted the searches. EPS provided the applicant with a chart indicating dates and times when the names of certain family members were searched and the parameters of the search. EPS refused to disclose the names of those members who had conducted the searches. The applicant asked the Information and Privacy Commissioner to review EPS’s decision to withhold this information.

ISSUES: EPS submitted that disclosing the names of its members who conducted the searches could lead to unfounded allegations of impropriety which would unfairly harm the reputation of those members (section 17(5)(h)).

DECISION AND REASONS:

• The Commissioner first considered whether the information that certain members of the EPS conducted particular searches was personal information about those members. In his analysis, the Commissioner preferred a different approach to the issue than that taken by the Adjudicator in Order F2006-020. In that Order, the Adjudicator stated that the information that certain individuals conducted certain searches was personal information about the individuals conducting the searches.
   
• Citing Order F2004-026, the Commissioner stated that where employees conduct searches as part of their work responsibilities, the mere fact that they conduct such searches does not, without more, make the record of those searches their personal information. For the information in a record of an employee’s work duties to be considered personal information, the information must have a personal dimension to it that makes the information “about” the individual. For example, if the acts of the employee are alleged to have been wrongful, the record of such an act may have a personal dimension.
   
• The Commissioner confirmed that the names of the EPS members were personal information, but found that there was no basis under section 17 to withhold the names in this case. The fact that the members were acting in their representative capacities weighed in favour of disclosing the names. There were no countervailing factors that weighed in favour of withholding the members’ names.
   
• The Commissioner stated that the possibility that unfounded allegations of impropriety could subsequently arise was not sufficient for section 17(5)(h) to apply. Any unfair harm to the members’ reputations would be a result of the allegations, and not of the disclosure of the simple fact that particular members had conducted the searches. If there were some credible foundation to an allegation, the need for public scrutiny (section 17(5)(a)) would favour disclosure.
   
• The Commissioner acknowledged that there could be situations in which it is important to withhold the name of a police officer where disclosure involves a risk to safety (section 18) or harm to law enforcement (section 20).

Edmonton Police Service was ordered to disclose the names of its members who conducted the name searches.