Saskatchewan privacy commissioner finds no breach in labour board’s publication of adjudicator’s reasons

Saskatchewan’s information and privacy commissioner found no privacy breach when the Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board published an adjudicator’s decision containing health information supplied by the complainant for the hearing. Commissioner Grace Hession David recommended that the board take no further action.

In Investigation Report 007-2026, dated Oct. 16, 2026, the commissioner concluded that section 27(2)(a) of The Health Information Protection Act authorized disclosure in these circumstances. The report also found that publication accorded with the open court principle.

The outcome did not exempt the board from health-privacy law. The commissioner first established that HIPA applied, then examined whether the particular disclosure was authorized. Nor did supplying evidence amount to a blanket waiver of privacy rights: the analysis turned on the information’s relevance, the purpose of its collection and the statutory rule for a consistent-purpose disclosure.

Privacy complaint concerned publication, not the employment outcome

The underlying proceeding involved an occupational health and safety complaint about workplace treatment and termination. Following earlier proceedings, an adjudicator found that the termination was discriminatory action under The Saskatchewan Employment Act. That employment finding was separate from the later privacy complaint about publishing the reasons.

The adjudicator’s reasons referred to health evidence directly relevant to deciding why the employment ended. According to the commissioner, the complainant had supplied the medical record and it formed part of the hearing’s evidentiary record. The report examined the board’s publication of the written decision, not an unrestricted release of the complainant’s medical file.

After objecting to the board’s posting of the information, the complainant brought the matter to the Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. The board responded that the reasons were those of an adjudicator, not a Labour Relations Board decision, and that the complainant had disclosed the information in the public proceeding.

The distinction between the two decision-makers remained important throughout the report. The adjudicator decided the employment appeal; the LRB received and published the adjudicator’s written reasons. The privacy investigation addressed the LRB’s handling of that information.

HIPA applied to the publishing board

The commissioner identified three requirements for HIPA to apply: a trustee, personal health information, and custody or control of that information by the trustee.

All three were present. The LRB was a trustee under section 2(1)(t)(i). The reasons’ reference to a medical record describing a health condition qualified as personal health information under section 2(1)(m)(i). Posting the decision on its website also placed that information within the board’s custody and control, including its ability to manage the record and regulate its use.

That finding gave the commissioner jurisdiction to investigate. The remaining question was authorization: disclosure of health information is not necessarily a breach if HIPA permits it.

Consistent-purpose disclosure and open justice

Section 27(2)(a) deems an individual to consent to disclosure for the purpose for which the trustee collected the information, or a purpose consistent with it. The board relied on that provision, and the commissioner accepted its application here.

The report traced the adjudicator’s role in receiving relevant evidence and making a decision, along with the statutory requirements for written reasons to be provided to the parties and the LRB. The board, in turn, receives the decision for distribution to the persons identified by the legislation. In that context, the commissioner found disclosure consistent with the original purpose of collecting the evidence.

The report separately considered online publication. It acknowledged that The Saskatchewan Employment Act does not directly authorize the LRB to publish decisions on its website. Drawing on Germain v. Automobile Injury Appeal Commission, 2009 SKQB 106, the commissioner nevertheless applied the open court principle to public access to adjudicative reasons.

The discussion linked openness to public confidence and understanding of the administration of justice, including the work of quasi-judicial tribunals. It did not treat the existence of health information as ending the analysis or establish that every disclosure by a tribunal is lawful.

Discretionary masking policy remained relevant

The report also considered the LRB’s privacy policy. It generally identifies parties in published decisions but allows an exception at the board’s discretion where sensitive personal or health information will be disclosed. Parties seeking to have their names masked may apply by letter explaining the reasons and the information involved; the letter is treated as a submission.

The commissioner said the complainant had not provided OIPC with evidence of a request to mask their name or sensitive health information in the adjudicator’s decision. That was a statement about the evidence before OIPC, not a finding that no request had ever been made.

The report’s final findings were that HIPA applied, section 27(2)(a) authorized the disclosure, publication was consistent with the open court principle and no privacy breach occurred. Its sole recommendation was that the LRB take no further action.