3. Whether the information falls under one of the exceptions to the definition of “personal information”
The exceptions set out in paragraphs 3(j) to 3(m) of the
Privacy Act set limits on the definition of “personal information” for the purposes of the personal information exemption. Paragraphs 3(j), (j.1), (k) and (l) seek to make the government, and its officials and employees more accountable to the public. The 3(m) exception applies to individuals who have been dead for more than 20 years.
Paragraph 3(j)
This is the most common exception. It applies to information about an individual who is or was an officer or employee of a government institution and that relates to the position or functions of the individual. The list of examples provided in subparagraphs 3(j)(i–v) is not exhaustive and does not limit the application of the introductory wording of 3(j).
For paragraph 3(j) to apply, the information must relate to the position or functions held by a federal officer or employee. In the
RCMP case, the Supreme Court found the following:
- This does not include information relating to the competence and characteristics of the employee.
- This exception applies when the information requested is sufficiently related to the general characteristics associated with the position held by an employee or the functions the employee carries out.
Examples
Examples of information found to fall within the scope of the 3(j) exception include the following:
- the kind of information disclosed in a job description: terms and conditions associated with a particular person, including qualifications, responsibilities, hours of work and salary range;
- the names of individuals on a sign-in log for a department denoting that they entered and left the workplace on weekends (Dagg); and
- the historical postings of RCMP officers, including status, ranks achieved, years of service, and anniversary dates (RCMP).
Paragraph 3(j.1)
This exception only applies to records created on or after June 21, 2019. For such records, information revealing that an individual is or was a ministerial adviser or a member of a ministerial staff, as well as the individual’s name and title, falls within the exception.
Furthermore, if a record created on or after June 21, 2019, reveals additional information other than the above, the exception would not apply for the additional information. For example, if a record also reveals the ministerial adviser’s or ministerial staff member’s views and opinions, or financial history, that information would constitute personal information.
Paragraphs 3(k), 3(l), 3(m)
Paragraphs 3(k) (individual performing services under contract), 3(l) (discretionary benefit of a financial nature) and 3(m) (deceased individual) are not as commonly used as other paragraphs.
Paragraph 3(k) applies to information
- about an individual who is or was performing services under contract for a government institution; and
- that relates to the services performed.
Examples of what this exception covers are the name of the individual and the views or opinions of the individual given in the course of the performance of those services.
Paragraph 3(l) applies to information relating to any discretionary benefit of a financial nature conferred on an individual (e.g. the granting of a licence or permit), including the individual’s name and the exact nature of the benefit.
In the
Prime Minister decision, the Federal Court of Appeal found that the reimbursement of expenses that an employee incurred by virtue of being employed in a particular position, and that resulted directly from the performance of work duties, does not constitute benefits (e.g. relocation costs, travel expenses).
Paragraph 3(m) is self-explanatory; the individual must have been deceased for more than 20 years.
