Employee Information in PeopleSoft: ATIPP s.23(4)(e)

The Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (ATIPP):

image3

ATIPPs.23(4)(e) says that the disclosure of this type of Employee Information from PeopleSoft is "no unreasonable invasion of privacy"


And this makes sense - if you are an employee of the government, you are being paid by the taxpayers . . . and the taxpayers should be allowed to make inquiries into what you are getting paid, what you are getting paid for, and what benefits you are getting for that employment

The GNWT's demand letter contradicts s.23(4)(e) of ATIPP:

image4

ATIPP s. 23(4)(e) dates back to 1994 and has never been changed

Decision for the GNWT: Apply the law or ignore the law?

Apply the law - Follow ATIPP:

Apply the law - Follow ATIPP:

Apply the law - Follow ATIPP:

image5

The law since 1994

Wing it - Ignore ATIPP:

Apply the law - Follow ATIPP:

Apply the law - Follow ATIPP:

image6

A letter written in 2019

image7

Application filed in Alberta at NWT taxpayer expense

The application seeks to explain why I had access to employee information after my employment ended

NOTE: You may recall from earlier that ATIPPs.23(4)(e) says that the disclosure of this type of Employee Information from PeopleSoft is not an "unreasonable invasion of privacy" 

In 2019 the story is that "the breach" was "inadvertent"

image8

It's "necessary" or "inadvertent" - it can't be both

"necessary"

"inadvertent"

"inadvertent"

image9

December 22, 2014

"inadvertent"

"inadvertent"

"inadvertent"

image10

January 9, 2019

So, is it "necessary", "inadvertent", or something else?

image11

March 19, 2019

How long does the GNWT need to get their story straight?

. . . And did it really require the involvement of the Alberta Courts at NWT taxpayer expense?

So, how long does it take the GNWT to get their story straight?