Ontario’s privacy commissioner is calling for new procedures after a request from the Crown for information led the Timmins Police Service to release personal information of dozens of people not involved in the case. The information was included in response to a criminal background check for a proposed surety for a suspect seeking release on bail. A check to see whether a surety in a bail hearing has a criminal record is required under the Criminal Code of Canada. However, Timmins police said it was standard to gather details on “any police interactions” when it conducts such requests. Total of 79 occurrence reports That resulted in police providing information on 79 occurrence reports generated by the Nishnawbe Aski Police Service. “The reports contained personal information relating to the proposed surety and many other identifiable individuals,” the privacy commission said in its decision. “(Timmins police) subsequently disclosed the reports in unredacted form to the assistant Crown attorney, who in turn disclosed them to defence counsel. Thereafter, the reports were filed with the court in unredacted form by the assistant Crown attorney, as well as by defence counsel.” While no criminal charges were found, the surety’s name came up in the 79 instances in a period of 8 ½ years and included times when the surety was present or a witness of an incident, or times when the surety called police. Lawyers for a First Nation complained that the search was overly broad and violated the privacy rights of 57 people named in the report “all without their knowledge and consent.” Many were under age 17 Many of those people were under age 12 and others between the ages of 12 and 17. The process resulted in the disclosure of “highly sensitive personal information” of dozens of people who had nothing to do with the case. “According to the complainant, the occurrence reports became publicly accessible after they were filed with the court,” the decision said. “In support of this position, the complainant provided evidence showing that it was granted access to an unredacted copy of the reports through the court’s process for public access to court exhibits.” Timmins police said it routinely supplies the information to the Crown, with the Crown responsible for whether any information should be redacted. And the Ministry of the Attorney General argued that no privacy breach occurred because none of the information released was subject to Ontario’s privacy laws. Search request was too broad “More specifically, MAG argues that, because a bail hearing is part of a criminal proceeding and the occurrence reports relate to and were disclosed during the bail hearing, the reports are excluded from the application of the Acts under the ongoing prosecution exclusions,” the decision said. The privacy commission ruled, however, that checking on a proposed surety does not require a level of scrutiny that exposes the personal data of people who have nothing to do with the case. The search should have been limited to whether the surety had a criminal record and not the broader search of “any police interactions,” the commission ruled. “In light of these findings of non-compliance, I make recommendations to (the Ministry of the Attorney General) and Timmins Police Service, including that they immediately cease the practice of, respectively, requesting and conducting surety check searches for ‘any police interactions.’” The commission directed Timmins police and the Ministry to change their policies when it comes to vetting sureties and to report back to them within three months. Read the full decision here.
