IPC wades into shadow IT mess, may never againA Rehabilitation Clinic (Re), 2020 CanLII 45770 (ON IPC)
The Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario issued a decision about a security incident in which it made clear, after participating in a health information custodians’ efforts to recover lost data, that this burden falls on custodians alone.
The incident involved a clinician at an unnamed rehabilitation clinic and her estranged spouse, who reported to the clinic that he possessed 164 unique files containing the personal health information of 46 clinic clients on two computers that belonged to the clinician. The clinician explained the existence of the files as a by-product of secure access and inadvertent, though the the files appear to have been purposely moved from temporary storage to a Google drive at some point, possibly by the spouse
The spouse was not particularly cooperative. This led the IPC, who the clinic had notified, to engage with the spouse together with the clinic over a several month period. The IPC took the (questionable) position that the spouse was in breach of duties under section 49(1) of PHIPA.
In the course of these dealings the spouse reported he had also received e-mails with attached assessment reports from the clinician for printing purposes. The clinician said she had thought she had adequately de-identified the reports, though one included a full patient name and others (as the IPC held) contained ample data to render patients identifiable.
All of the detritus was eventually deleted to the satisfaction of the clinic and IPC. The clinic reconfigured its means of providing secure remote access to adresses the risk of local storage and beefed up its administrative policies and training. There is no mention of implementing a digital loss prevention solution.
The IPC decision is notable for two points.
First, the IPC made clear that custodians should not rely on the IPC to help with data recovery (which can be very expensive):
It is clear that interactions between the Clinic and the Spouse had been very challenging, chiefly due to the Spouse’s changing positions throughout this investigation. However, the obligations on a health information custodian to contain the breach remain, even in the face of challenging circumstances. The Privacy Breach Guidelines are clear that there is an obligation on the health information custodian to retrieve any copies of personal health information that have been disclosed and ensure that no copies of personal health information have been made or retained by anyone who was not authorized to receive the information. Nothing in the legislation or these guidelines transfers this obligation to the IPC.
Second, the clinic was less skeptical of the clinician than it might otherwise have been, and did not issue discipline. The IPC accepted this, and re-stated its deferential position on employee discipline as follows:
With respect to the Clinic’s decision, I am satisfied that it was reasonable in the circumstances. This office has stated that its role is not to judge the severity or appropriateness of sanctions taken by a custodian against its agents (see PHIPA Decision 74). However, the IPC can taken into account a custodian’s disciplinary response as part of its assessment of whether the custodian has taken reasonable steps to protect personal health information against unauthorized access.