A Follow-Up

Our letter to the co-op:

The Privacy Commissioner of Canada has ruled in our favour that the Drug Card for ODSP/OW recipients has nothing whatsoever to do with the verification of income and, in fact, does not stipulate how many people reside in a member's unit. The drug card only indicates who is covered under the drug card.

What is most disturbing about the process we went through is the fact that it took an outside organization to effect change in the co-op movement. In your letter to us dated December 3, 2009 you stated:

Your concerns regarding privacy issues and the request to provide drug eligibility verification was specifically addressed with Co-ordinator's in the City of Ottawa, with CHASEO, and also with ___, Manager of Co-op Services, CHF Canada. All inquiries were anonymous and did not reference any Co-op or member. All inquiries have led your Board to the conclusion that the request for this information is justified and, in fact required to confirm household composition. To further emphasize this, CHF Canada has informed us that the Co-op has a "duty" to obtain this information for subsidy verification purposes. The issue of Privacy of Information does not preclude this request. The Co-op's responsibility is to ensure that all such information received is treated with the strictest of confidence, and the Board ensures that such information will not be disseminated or otherwise disclosed, without explicit written consent. The information will be safeguarded in your file as with all member information.

We informed the co-op over and over again that the drug card had nothing whatsoever to do with the calculation of one's subsidy, but our 'voices' were not heard. The co-op, CHASEO, CHF and as you indicated, the Office Co-ordinators across the city were intransigent in their 'demand' for the drug card - common sense did not prevail.

The Agency, when questioned by The Privacy Commissioner's office, stated that they do not require the collection of the drug card. It's incredible to us that CHASEO, CHF, or any of the Office Co-ordinators in the City of Ottawa, never brought our concerns to The Agency, which receives millions of dollars each year to administer and govern housing co-operatives. The Agency's auspices is cited in every demand letter we receive from the co-op. An oversight, or collusion on the part of The Agency?

The co-op must now inform CHASEO, CHF and the Office Co-ordinators in the City of Ottawa of The Privacy Commissioner of Canada's ruling with regards to the collection of the drug card and, in particular, to members of this housing co-op.

The co-op's subsidy forms are thirteen years old. The Agency stated to The Privacy Commissioner's Office that they have new subsidy forms. As such, please forward same to us as soon as possible.

*****
I personally feel that The Agency knew about this the whole time and protected themselves when contacted by The Privacy Commissioner's Office. There are millions of dollars in government funding at stake. To appear to be other than competent would not bode well for The Agency.

The Dumping Grounds

A.K.A. The Gravel Pit

The snow removal contractors came by recently to clean the streets. The supervisor instructed a driver to dump the road debris into 'the gravel pit'. Finally, it has been confirmed that what a Board of Directors created three or four years ago was indeed a dumping ground. The 'platform' consists of tons of rock pebbles at the end of one of our side streets to allow the snow removal contractors to stock pile snow.

The rocks spills down our landscaped hill, spreads itself over a large area and contravenes our site plan with the city. The platform also spawned a duel purpose from the day of its inception - illegal parking spots for gangs.

This sanctioned spot, created by a Board of Directors, grew exponentially this winter. The snow removal contractors trucked mounds of snow from other areas in the co-op and packed it in all around the sides and back of a row of units next to the gravel pit. Spring melt completely surrounded the units igniting panic in members, so the snow removal contractors hauled the snow away - away from our co-op!

What money are we saving when we paid the contractors to re-haul all the snow mounds to dump it in and around the row of units and then pay them to remove the snow once and for all?

The enhanced gravel pit now borders our kiddie park and has contaminated the entrance with massive amounts of garbage and road debris. Much of our landscaping has been destroyed, as evidence by the ripped off evergreen branches in the above photo.

There is not a private resident or a condo corporation which would allow for this sort of destruction. And here we are - our co-op has created a permanent eyesore, which keeps growing every year. It boggles the mind!

Privacy Commissioner's Report

Preamble:

In 2008 we hired a lawyer to assist us in obtaining documentation from our co-op with regards to the calculation of our subsidy. Part of our concerns was the demand from the co-op for a copy of our ODSP Drug card. We asserted that the drug card had nothing whatosever to do with the calculation of our subsidy and we, therefore, refused to give the co-op a copy of same. Our lawyer agreed with our assertion and wrote the following to the co-op:

On the subject of the new Housing Charge form, we discussed on July 7th that requesting proof of prescription drug coverage is not necessary for the purpose of calculating housing charges and should not be a required document. I have discussed the new form with the Privacy Commissioner's Office and we are justified in questioning whether it conforms to the privacy law. Do you want to go ahead and readjust the form to meet privacy law requirements? If the form is left as is, I have instructions to proceed with a formal privacy complaint.

Our lawyer never did hear back from our Office Co-ordinator either by phone, fax or letter. My husband and I filed a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner's office in January, 2009.

In December, 2009 our housing co-operative wrote us the following:

Your concerns regarding privacy issues and the request to provide drug eligibility verification was specifically addressed with Co-ordinator's in the City of Ottawa, with CHASEO, and also with _____, Manager of Co-op Services, CHF Canada. All inquiries were anonymous and did not reference any Co-op or member. All inquiries have led your Board to the conclusion that the request for this information is justified and, in fact required to confirm household composition. To further emphasize this, CHF Canada has informed us that the Co-op has a "duty" to obtain this information for subsidy verification purposes. The issue of Privacy of Information does not preclude this request. The Co-op's responsibility is to ensure that all such information received is treated with the strictest of confidence, and the Board ensures that such information will not be disseminated or otherwise disclosed, without explicit written consent. The information will be safeguarded in your file as with all member information.

We were delighted to learn yesterday that the Privacy Commissioner of Canada has ruled in our favour. Here is the report:


Complaint under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (the Act)

1. The Complainant alleges that [co-op] ("Respondent") requires the collection of more personal information than is required to support his family's rent subsidy.

2. Specifically, he states that the Respondent has asked for a copy of the Ontario Disability Support Program Drug Card ("Drug Card") as verification of the number of people residing in his residential unit.

3. The Complainant alleges that the Drug Card does not provide the information the Respondent believes it does and it is therefore a collection of more information than is necessary. In other words, the Drug Card does not contain information about the number of people living in a residential unit.

Summary of Investigation

4. The Respondent provided submissions that it was their "duty" to obtain information for subsidy verification purposes, as part of the application process to reside in their residential co-operative.

5. The application form the Complainant was required to fill out makes reference to the need for Social Assistance Recipients to submit copies of benefits statements and dental/medical cards, as they indicate the number of household residents.

6. There are references on the application form that are outdated social assistance legislation that was replaced 12 years ago.

7. The Respondent provided an excerpt of an Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing pamphlet entitled 'Rent Geared-to-Income Handbook'. The pamphlet states that "Copies of the Notice of Assistance Stub and the Drug Benefits Eligibility Card should be used as verification for tenants/members on social assistance".

8. The pamphlet further states: "The Drug Benefits Eligibility Card identifies the number of beneficiaries in the household and the cheque stub will provide ... [further information].

9. Our investigation uncovered the fact that the pamphlet has been updated several times and the version the Respondent was relying on was out of date. Importantly, the newest version of the pamphlet makes no reference to the Drug Card, or the need to collect a copy of the card for any reason.

10. Lastly, the Respondent indicated that it was relying on the pamphlet solely based on the instructions from the Agency for Co-operative Housing (the "Agency") - not because of any legal requirement to apply the procedures in that pamphlet. The Respondent understood that the Agency had provided the instructions to collect the Drug Card from tenants.

11. However, the Agency informed us that they do not require the Respondent to collect the Drug Card. Rather, from the Agency's perspective, the Respondent must collect only information which verifies a tenant's income.

12. The Drug Card is a social benefit administered by the Ontario government. Its purpose is solely to identify to pharmacists those individuals eligible for assistance in having their medication paid for through social assistance programs. It does not provide verification of income or confirmation of the number of people in any one residence.

Application

13. In making our determinations, we applied Principles 4.4 and 4.4.1 of Schedule 1 of the Act.

14. Principle 4.4 states:

"The collection of personal information shall be limited to that which is necessary for the purposes identified by the organization. Information shall be collected by fair and lawful means."

15. Principle 4.4.1 states:

"Organizations shall not collect personal information indiscriminately. Both, the amount and the type of information collected shall be limited to that which is necessary to fulfill the purposes identified."

Findings

16. The Respondent has been operating under the misapprehension that the collection of the Drug Card was necessary to verify the number of people living in a residential unit.

17. The misapprehension appears to have arisen because of their reliance on an outdated Government of Ontario pamphlet and a misunderstand as to the instructions the Respondent received from the Agency.

18. Moreover, their application process is out-of-date in that it makes reference to out dated legislation. This suggests that the Respondent has not recently examined their application process.

19. As part of this investigation, the respondent indicated that it will cease to collect the Drug Card as part of the application process.

Conclusion

20. Accordingly, the matter is considered well-founded and resolved.

*****

The co-op is still using subsidy application forms 13 years out of date with, of course, a demand for social services drug card. The Agency, CHASEO, CHF and Office Co-ordinators will not likely be informed of the Privacy Commissioner's ruling. If our co-op does not update their subsidy application forms, we will have no choice but to apply to the Federal Court of Canada to force them to do so. The intransigence and arrogance of it all!

Findings Of Privacy Commissioner To Be Posted Soon

We won our case!

Deal With It!

Notice from Office - October 2010:

Editorial:*

Member/staff/board relations: A Business Point of View.

It is time to clarify [co-op's] relationship with its members. If you were renting, or in public housing you would not bring your daily problems to the directors of the company you would contact the property agent by mail or telephone (in this case 'Office Co-ordinator'). If you had a problem such as fire or crime, you would contact the appropriate emergency service. A Co-operative Housing Corporation can be no different!

Let me clarify - it is impossible to get in touch with the Office Co-ordinator. Whether one slips a letter into the mail slot, or writes her an email - the response is the same - NOTHING! The co-op's telephone voice mail is always full. She doesn't work on Fridays, leaves early on Thursday afternoon, arrives past 9:00 a.m. on the other days. When she is here - and we can only tell by turned on lights in the common room - she doesn't answer the door. So I've been wondering all the while what inspired this cryptic message.

Then I got it.

If you're tired of drug dealing in the co-op - call the cops. If you're tired of seeing trailers full of junk, piled up tires in front of units, muddy tire ruts because of double/triple parking - close your eyes. Whatever you do, DO NOT express your concerns to the Board or a Board Member and DO NOT pester the Office Co-ordinator - she's too busy.

So that leaves one thing and one thing only: 'Deal With It' in order to 'Get Over It'.

Neat!

* No one knows who writes these notices, or who the 'Editor' is.

Tweeties à la Blog

• No news from Office Co-ordinator re renewed subsidies which were to have been effective on April 1st - a joke?
• Guns & Gang police cars are in the co-op often - close to where we live.
• Snow plow contractor destroyed co-op's landscaping - a melted snow mountain now a lake surrounding a unit.

Co-opcracy

A committee of our Members of Parliament have concluded that the Conservative Government is in contempt for not producing documents requested by the Opposition. This finding could lead to a vote of non confidence later this week.

Housing co-operatives are governed by the same principles as our Parliament, with a Board of Directors elected by the Members. The current jargon used by our Office Co-ordinator (in rare updates) are the terms 'transparency' and 'accountability'. We are being told that our co-op excels in these areas. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Our Office Co-ordinator has apparently been on vacation since around the 10th of March, due back tomorrow - Wednesday (leaving again early Thursday afternoon because she doesn't work on Fridays). I know this because I read a note taped on the door of the office building. Members did not receive individual notification that she was on vacation. The note indicated that if problems were to arise, members could get in touch with two Board members. This in itself could result in very unpleasant circumstances, such as being told where to go.

The co-op is extremely trashy looking - tires piled up outside units, trailers filled with junk in member's driveways, cars doubled or tripled parked on grass - the list is endless. This place has become 'tough' with a gang-like atmosphere. But that's alright with the Board of Directors, because they're filling units. I never thought that I'd ever say this, but I am embarrassed to live here.

Members complain to each other about their request for repairs being ignored, not being able to get in touch with the Office Co-ordinator, not receiving updates from the Office and having no where to turn to.

This is what we live with - a perverted twist of 'Democracy' spelled with a capital 'C'.