The authoritative record of every ruling.
Federal, provincial, and territorial privacy and access decisions — catalogued, colour-coded by outcome, and summarized in plain language.
Canadian Heritage (Re), 2026 OIC 44
The complainant alleged that Canadian Heritage failed to conduct a reasonable search for records and improperly withheld personal information under subsection 19(1) of the Access to Information Act. The request sought records related to weightlifting in 2023 and 2024, specifically confirmation letters, athlete rationale forms, and appeals. During the investigation, the complainant withdrew the allegation regarding subsection 19(1). The investigation found that Canadian Heritage's search was too narrow, as it only used one athlete's name despite the request not being limited to a specific individual. While the institution provided explanations for the non-existence of some specific records, the Commissioner concluded that the overall search was not reasonable and additional records might exist. The Information Commissioner ordered Canadian Heritage to conduct a new, broader search and provide a new response to the complainant.
Federal (Canada)
Ontario
British Columbia
Alberta
Saskatchewan
Manitoba
Quebec
Nova Scotia
New Brunswick
Prince Edward Island
Newfoundland and Labrador
Yukon
Northwest Territories
NunavutEvery province and territoryLatest in the record
A-2026-019 — Town of Grand Falls-Windsor
Town of Grand Falls-Windsor
The complainant requested information from the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor, including details about Municipal Enforcement Officers' qualifications. The Town provided some records but withheld the officers' qualifications under section 40 of ATIPPA, 2015, citing personal privacy. The complainant argued that additional records should exist and disputed the application of section 40, claiming public interest outweighed privacy and alleging a conflict of interest. The Commissioner found that the Town conducted a reasonable search for records and met its duty to assist under section 13. The Commissioner also concluded that releasing information about an employee's training or educational history would constitute an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy under section 40(4)(c). Allegations of conflict of interest were deemed outside the Commissioner's jurisdiction. The Commissioner recommended that the Town continue to withhold the personal information.
Order Camosun College
Camosun College
An employee of Camosun College requested records related to workplace investigations involving them. The College withheld some information under FIPPA ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy). The OIPC adjudicator found that much of the information withheld under s. 13(1) was properly exempted as it would reveal advice or recommendations, but some factual material was not. For s. 22(1), the adjudicator determined that most of the information was personal information, and presumptions under ss. 22(3)(a) (medical/psychological history) and 22(3)(d) (employment history) applied to significant portions. However, some information was not personal information, and certain circumstances (like the applicant's own personal information or innocuous details) weighed against withholding. The adjudicator ordered the disclosure of specific information that was not properly exempted under either section and found no requirement to provide a summary under s. 22(5).
Order Board of Education of School District 68 (Nanaimo-Ladysmith)
Board of Education of School District 68 (Nanaimo-Ladysmith)
The Board of Education of School District 68 (District) applied under section 43 of FIPPA for authorization to disregard the remaining parts of a multi-part access request. The District argued the request was frivolous, vexatious, excessively broad, and would unreasonably interfere with its operations. The Adjudicator found that the entire access request was vexatious, made for improper purposes, and constituted an abuse of the right of access. This conclusion was based on the applicant's stated intentions, confrontational tone, the timing of the request after a dismissed civil action, and the request's complex, overlapping, and accusatory nature. Consequently, the District was authorized to disregard the outstanding parts of the request. Additionally, the Adjudicator granted future relief, allowing the District to disregard any access request from the applicant beyond one open request at a time for a period of two years.
Order BC Ferry Services Inc.
BC FERRY SERVICES INC.
An individual requested access to records from BC Ferry Services Inc. (BC Ferries) concerning a specific ferry route. BC Ferries refused access to certain information, claiming exemptions under FIPPA sections 15(1)(f), 15(1)(l), 17(1), 17(1)(b), and 19(1)(b). The OIPC adjudicator found that BC Ferries failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of probable financial harm under sections 17(1) and 17(1)(b), noting the historical nature of the data and insufficient evidence of competitive impact. Similarly, the adjudicator was not persuaded that disclosure would cause a reasonable expectation of probable harm to safety or security under sections 15(1)(f), 15(1)(l), and 19(1)(b), citing low threat levels and the historical context of the information. Consequently, the adjudicator concluded that BC Ferries was not authorized to withhold the information under any of the claimed exemptions. BC Ferries was ordered to disclose the withheld records to the applicant.
Order Haddock & Company
Haddock & Company
An individual requested all of their personal information from Haddock & Company, a law firm, under the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA). The law firm applied to the OIPC under s. 37 of PIPA for permission to disregard the request, arguing it was both frivolous and vexatious. Haddock & Company claimed the request was frivolous because much of the information had already been disclosed in related litigation and vexatious due to the significant effort required for compliance without providing useful information. The adjudicator found no evidence that the request was made for an improper purpose or in bad faith. The OIPC concluded that the organization failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that the request was either frivolous or vexatious. Consequently, the OIPC denied the law firm's application, requiring it to proceed with processing the individual's access request.
Order Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction
Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction
An individual complained that the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction (Ministry) improperly collected their personal information during an eligibility review for disability assistance. The complainant argued that the collected financial information, including details about bank transactions, trusts, and assets, was either exempt from the review or not authorized for collection under FIPPA ss. 26(a) and 26(c). The Ministry contended that its collection was expressly authorized by s. 10(1.1) of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act (EAPWDA), which in turn authorized the collection under FIPPA s. 26(a). The adjudicator first confirmed that the information in dispute constituted "personal information" under FIPPA. The OIPC found that s. 10(1.1) of EAPWDA provides broad discretion to the Minister to direct applicants to supply information for eligibility determination. Consequently, the adjudicator concluded that the Ministry's collection of the complainant's personal information was expressly authorized by EAPWDA and thus by FIPPA s. 26(a). The complaint was dismissed, as no contravention of FIPPA was found.