Analyzing Alberta S Health Information Act

¶ … Alberta's Health Information Act (HIA). Statement of the Rule of Law The inquisitorial justice system, commonly followed in nations that practice civil law, is an alternate model to adversarial systems, followed by common-law nations, such as New Zealand. The former system is normally defined as one that aims at obtaining the truth behind any matter by means of extensive search and analysis of all pieces of evidence.

On the other hand, the latter system's aim is arriving at the truth by means of an open competition among defense and prosecution, for making the most convincing argument in their favor (Appendix B: a comparison of the inquisitorial and adversarial systems -- Ministry of Justice, New Zealand, n.d). Field experts who criticize the adversarial strategy contend that the quest for victory frequently dominates the pursuit for truth. One cannot consider either of the two systems as inherently superior.

There are, in fact, a number of common features, and numerous countries integrate both systems' features, having experienced some level of convergence in the past eight decades. In adversarial systems, the defense and the Police are in charge of collecting evidence. These systems expect prosecutors, who act on the State's behalf, and defense lawyers, who act on the defendant's behalf, to present their account of events, followed by arguing their case in front of an impartial judge or panel of judges.

Witnesses orally provide their chief evidence and might be subject to cross-questioning and re-examination by the opposing counsel. In both adversarial and inquisitorial systems, defendants are accorded a right to fair trial and are safeguarded from self-accusation. Application of the Law to the Facts The inviolate personality principle lies at the foundation of privacy rights; this personal privacy right is inalienable and universal. Privacy right protection is regarded as pivotal to respecting individual dignity, autonomy and integrity.

It has significant value, owing to its impact on social and personal relationships, and owing to its ability to indirectly safeguard people from harm, including discrimination, which may be linked to disclosure of sensitive personal data (Von Tigerstrom, et.al, n.d). Numerous major international documents of human rights, such as the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) and UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights) recognize privacy rights.

ICCPR Article 17 includes the provision that no individual shall experience unlawful or arbitrary interference with regard to his/her privacy, home, family or correspondence, and no individual shall face unlawful criticism with regard to his/her reputation and honor; also, every individual is entitled to legal protection against such attacks or interference.

The United Nations Committee for Human Rights has declared that the right against every such attack and interference must be guaranteed, irrespective of whether the attack/interference stems from legal or natural persons or from the State (Von Tigerstrom, et.al). Thus, states parties are duty-bound to themselves to refrain from engaging in interferences that are not consistent with ICCPR Article 17, as well as to offer a legislative framework that forbids these kinds of acts by legal or natural persons.

Alberta's HIA grants people the privilege of obtaining copies of every record in the control or custody of approved hospital boards. Operators are bound by some exceptions that are outlined within the Act For obtaining access to any record, a person needs to submit an application to the agency or department controlling or possessing the record. In a 30-day period, the institution has to issue its decision with regard to whether to release this requested record or not.

If access is denied, the requester can appeal this denial to the privacy and information commissioner. HIA elucidates the technique using the appeal, which has to be processed by the commissioner. Based on this description, I perceive this to undoubtedly be a process of an inquisitorial nature.

Both Sides of the Issue Individuals denied access to any record sought under the HIA or any part of it can, if any complaint is lodged to the ICO (Information Commissioner's Office) in connection with the denial, apply to court for reviewing the matter in a period of 45 days, following reporting of complaint investigation results by ICO to complainant as part of subsection 37(2), or in such additional time as allowed or fixed by the Court, either after or before completion of 45 days (Access to Information Act, 2015).

Setting aside any other parliamentary acts or privileges under evidentiary law, the Court can, during any proceedings in front of it, owing to a request under sections 41, 42 or 44, investigate all records under government agency/organization control, to which the HIA is applicable. A federal government or government organization head may deny disclosure of records requested under the HIA, which comprise information whose disclosure can be reasonably expected to injure the Canadian Government's conduct of its federal-provincial activities, including, without restriction of the foregoing's generality, any such data on.