Is this just another stall?
I too received the same 'bedbug' letter that Bridget Campion received from Mr Biron, about the request for an association membership list; her's was on display last evening. In that letter shown on the right, click on the image to enlarge, he said that the release of the list depended on a ruling from the Privacy Commissioner. So when I called the Privacy Commission to see if they had a request on file and how long it would take for a response Karen Hale, a Privacy Officer, asked me, "Why would we make such a ruling, hospitals are not subject to the freedom of Information Act (FOI)?"So is the request for a ruling just a stall or a move by a highly paid person who doesn't know the basics of FOI? I would prefer to think the former but then Mr Biron's motives may be questioned as an attempt to stall the release of the list until after the AGM.
This move doesn't pass 'the sniff test'. In an e-mail I have pointed this out to Mr Biron and asked for the list to be released.
Stay tuned.
2 comments:
Good detective work Ben. My boss always told me not to accept anything at face value unless I knew for a fact it was true. If that meant digging for it, so be it.
If only we all made a habit of being so diligent!
Let's be clear here. Hospitals are subject to FIPPA (Freedom of Information and Personal Privacy Act) especially in the respect of patient records, employee information, and other such matters. The exception is around "public" information which in this case is defined in the Corporations Act and how membership/shareholders are treated. FIPPA clearly states privacy exceptions for consideration in multiple instances in Section 21 of FIPPA:
(1) A head shall refuse to disclose personal information to any
person other than the individual to whom the information relates except,
....
(c) personal information collected and maintained specifically for the
purpose of creating a record available to the general public;
(d) under an Act of Ontario or Canada that expressly authorizes the
disclosure;
etc.
and
(2) A head, in determining whether a disclosure of personal information constitutes an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, shall consider all the relevant circumstances, including whether,
(a) the disclosure is desirable for the purpose of subjecting the
activities of the Government of Ontario and its agencies to public scrutiny;
(b) access to the personal information may promote public health and safety;
(c) access to the personal information will promote informed choice in
the purchase of goods and services;
(d) the personal information is relevant to a fair determination of
rights affecting the person who made the request;
etc.
This is all FIPPA. The relevant sections of the Corporations Act are subsections 305 through 307 which clearly state membership/shareholder information is public as per sections (1) (c) and (d) under FIPPA (In fact section 307.1 of the Corporations Act states "any person" can request such information of a corporation--but not of a private company).
Why, one might ask is this so? Well, its called shareholder activism, in that occasionally shareholders may not be happy with corporate governance and may want to communicate to other members/shareholders (as members or fellow owners) that perhaps management changes are in order. In fact section 306.2 expressly states such lists will be made available for "any effort to influence the voting of shareholders or members at any meeting of the corporation".
That the corporate governance of the hospital is refusing their own members (let alone members of the public) access to membership lists under a very broad (or loose) interpretation of privacy policy speaks volumes about their attitudes around transparency and accountability.
Should the Privacy Commissioner decide in favour of the hospital it will set back decades of shareholder activism. But that probably won't happen. But by the time the official decision is rendered the AGM will have already passed.
Post a Comment