Order F2007-019: Summary

ORDER: F2007-019

DATE: March 3, 2008

PUBLIC BODY: Edmonton Public School Board District No. 7

FOIP REQUEST: The administrators of a high school confiscated a student’s cell phone and reviewed and allegedly deleted some of the photographs stored on the phone. The student’s parents complained to the Information and Privacy Commissioner that their son’s personal information had been collected and used by the school administrators in contravention of Part 2 of the FOIP Act.

ISSUES: The parents claimed that their son’s privacy, as well as the privacy of the individuals in the photographs, including themselves, had been invaded by the school administrators. Edmonton Public School Board argued that it had reviewed the photographs for a law enforcement purpose. Neither party provided evidence to support their positions.

DECISION AND REASONS:

• The Commissioner reviewed the evidentiary requirements and the burden of proof for complaints made under the FOIP Act about the collection, use and disclosure of personal information. Referring to FOIP Practice Note 10, the Commissioner stressed that a party risks having a decision go against it if the party does provide evidence to support its written or oral arguments. Evidence can be in the form of affidavit evidence or direct evidence provided by the individual with first-hand knowledge of the issues.
   
• Citing Order P2006-008, the Commissioner stated that the person initiating the complaint has the onus of establishing that he or she has standing to bring the complaint and of providing evidence that suggests his or her personal information has been collected, used or disclosed. The onus then shifts to the public body to establish that its collection, use or disclosure of the complainant’s personal information was authorized by the FOIP Act.
   
• The Commissioner found that the parents lacked standing to bring a complaint. There was no evidence that they were authorized, under section 84, to exercise the right of their son to bring a complaint about the collection and use of his personal information. If the parents were complaining that their own personal information had been improperly collected and used, each parent would have had to make his or her own complaint. Collectively, the parents were not a “person” for the purposes of the FOIP Act.
   
• The Commissioner noted that even if the parents had standing, there was no evidence that either the son’s or parents’ personal information had been collected or used by the school administrators. Referring to the definition of “personal information” (section 1(n)) and Orders 97-002 and P2006-004, the Commissioner noted that personal information is information about an individual. The parents did not establish that they or their son were captured in the photographs. If the photographs contained the personal information of other students, only those students would have standing to bring a complaint that their personal information had been collected contrary to the Act. The fact that the parents and son considered the photographs to be “private information” did not make the information “personal information” under the Act.
   
• The Commissioner found that the Board failed to provide any evidence to support its claim that the photographs were reviewed for a law enforcement purpose. However, this was not grounds for an order against the Board in this instance because the parents had no standing to make the original complaint and there was no proof that their or their son’s personal information had been collected.

As the parents lacked standing to bring a complaint, the Commissioner was unable to make any order.