Access to information: images captured by surveillance cameras
Through access to information, is it possible to have access to images captured by surveillance cameras in a public place?
In the age of technology, it is increasingly common to question the disclosure and sharing of our information.
Recently, in the decision of Whaley v. Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières1, the Commission d’accès à l’information du Québec (hereinafter the “Commission”) ruled on the right of a plaintiff who wished to obtain a copy of video surveillance at the entrance to a university student bar during two separate events.
Facts
The plaintiff in question is a student at Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières (hereinafter “UQTR”). Following alleged altercations concerning him at the entrance to the student bar of the same university, the plaintiff was denied entry. Subsequently, the plaintiff submitted an access to information request to UQTR to obtain a copy of the images captured by the cameras at the entrance to the bar.
The images show the plaintiff as well as third parties, such as bar customers, security personnel, and passers-by.
In response to this request for access to information, UQTR refused the disclosure on the grounds that the videos make it possible to identify third parties and that disclosure would likely cause these persons serious harm. Therefore, the dispute does not relate to the qualification of personal information, which is clearly such, as it shows the faces, actions, and gestures of private persons2.
Dissatisfied with this refusal, the plaintiff submitted a request for review to the Commission.
Decision of the Commission d’accès à l’information
When analyzing an access to information request, one distinction is very important: the applicable legal regime differs depending on whether the requested information includes images of the plaintiff and third parties or only of third parties. As the UQTR noted this distinction, the Commission considers that it has fulfilled its obligations.
More specifically, when the plaintiff does not appear in the images, that is, when only third parties are seen in the recordings, he cannot legally obtain a copy, in accordance with article 59 of the Act respecting access to documents held by public bodies and the protection of personal information3.
Conversely, and this is what is at issue in the present case, when the plaintiff appears in the images, but with other people, it is article 88 of the Act respecting access to documents held by public bodies and the protection of personal information that is applied. This provision stipulates that a public body must refuse disclosure if it would likely reveal personal information of another private person and if disclosure would likely cause that person serious harm.
There are therefore two elements here that must be demonstrated by UQTR:
– that the information reveals information about a third party and
– that the disclosure is likely to seriously harm this third party.
As for the disclosure of personal information about third parties, the Commission focused on the term “reveal.” In fact, it repeated the decision of S.V. v. Commission de la santé et de la sécurité au travail4, mentioning that the term “reveal” implies that the requested information is unknown to the plaintiff5. However, certain extracts in the present case do not provide the plaintiff, who was present at the scene, with more information. These extracts should therefore, in the Commission’s view, be accessible to the plaintiff.
Regarding any serious harm, the Commission is of the opinion that there is no evidence to this effect and that the extracts do not allow us to apprehend a serious risk. The observation of less than noble gestures, which could embarrass certain people, is not sufficient to conclude that a serious harm exists.
Conclusion
Considering all the above-mentioned elements, the Commission orders UQTR to transmit to the plaintiff a copy of the images in which he appears. All scenes that exclusively show third parties must be removed from the images.
Furthermore, although the Commission is not obliged to comment on this point, it has taken care to emphasize that the potential use of the images and the legality of their use and publicity in the public space is rather a matter of civil liability.
The right of access to information is an independent right to the use that could be made of the information obtained.
Drafted with the collaboration of Ms. Émilie Higgins, law student
1 Whaley v. Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, 2021 QCCAI 27.
2 Id, par. 19.
3 Act respecting access to documents held by public bodies and the protection of personal information, L.R.Q., c. A-2.1.
4 S.V. v. Commission de la santé et de la sécurité au travail, 2015 QCCAI 288.
5 Id., par. 21.