The authoritative record of every ruling.
Federal, provincial, and territorial privacy and access decisions — catalogued, colour-coded by outcome, and summarized in plain language.
Public Services and Procurement Canada (Re), 2021 OIC 29
The complainant alleged that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) failed to conduct a reasonable search for a recording of a specific Microsoft Teams meeting and related communications. PSPC confirmed that while Microsoft Teams has recording capabilities, this function was not used for the meeting in question, and therefore no recording existed. The institution also stated that the meeting was informal and did not involve activities or decisions requiring record creation under its policies. The OIC's investigation found that PSPC tasked the appropriate program area and IT branch to search for the records, and re-tasked meeting attendees, but no responsive records were identified. The OIC concluded that PSPC took reasonable steps to identify and locate responsive records, even though none were found. Consequently, the complaint was deemed not well founded.
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-2026-032 — Royal Newfoundland Constabulary
Royal Newfoundland Constabulary
The Complainant requested records from the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary (RNC) concerning a police complaint, including the police report, officer comments, and body cam video. The RNC provided a redacted file, withholding information under section 40 of ATIPPA, 2015, and stated no body cam video existed. The Complainant challenged the RNC's decision to withhold information and questioned the adequacy of the record search. The Commissioner found that the RNC conducted a reasonable search for records, noting that body cameras were not used by their officers. The Commissioner also concluded that the RNC appropriately withheld third-party personal information under section 40(1) and 40(4), as its disclosure would constitute an unreasonable invasion of privacy. No factors under section 40(5) justified the release of this personal information. The Commissioner recommended that the RNC maintain its original position.
Decision pursuant to 6.1, 2026 OIC 61
A federal institution
An institution applied to the Information Commissioner under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act, seeking approval to decline to act on an access request. The institution argued that the request constituted an abuse of the right of access, citing two main reasons: the request's alleged purpose to obtain information not under the institution's control or another individual's personal information, and the significant burden processing the request would place on the institution. The Commissioner examined whether the request's purpose was illegitimate and whether the institution's burden assessment was adequately justified. The Commissioner found that seeking information potentially not under control or personal information does not inherently constitute an abuse of the right of access. Furthermore, the Commissioner determined that the institution's estimates for record volume and processing time were not sufficiently substantiated. Consequently, the Commissioner concluded that the institution failed to demonstrate that the access request was an abuse of the right of access, and the application was denied.
Order F26-84
Multiple Public Bodies
The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) initiated a proceeding to determine if Nevio Cimolai's use of FIPPA and PIPA processes constituted an abuse of process. The public bodies involved (PHSA, UBC, Ministry of Health, and Ministry of Finance) submitted that the individual's conduct was abusive, citing excessive requests, irrelevant materials, and personal attacks. The OIPC adjudicator found that the individual's conduct, including making unfounded allegations, failing to address issues, repeatedly raising rejected arguments, submitting excessive irrelevant materials, berating others, and failing to follow instructions, collectively demonstrated an abuse of process. The adjudicator also rejected the individual's arguments regarding procedural fairness, bias, and the appropriateness of the OIPC's evidence. As a remedy, the OIPC cancelled all outstanding files involving the individual and imposed significant restrictions on his future use of OIPC services. These restrictions include requiring prior permission for new complaints/requests and shifting the burden of proof to the individual for future requests to demonstrate they are not an abuse of process.
Order F26-85
British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (BC Hydro) applied to the Commissioner under section 43 of FIPPA to disregard eight access requests from an individual. BC Hydro argued the requests were vexatious, an abuse of the right to make a request, and would unreasonably interfere with its operations. The adjudicator found that the requests were not vexatious under s. 43(a), as the respondent's intent was to seek information he genuinely believed existed, not to harass. However, the adjudicator determined that the requests constituted an abuse of the right to make a request under s. 43(d)(i) because they were systematic, characterized by "springboarding," "stacking," and repeating/reframing. Furthermore, the adjudicator found that responding to these requests would unreasonably interfere with BC Hydro's operations under s. 43(c)(i) due to the significant resources already expended and the projected time required, impacting other access applicants. Consequently, the OIPC authorized BC Hydro to disregard the outstanding requests and any future requests from the respondent for a period of one year.
A-2026-031 — College of the North Atlantic
College of the North Atlantic
The complainant submitted two access requests to the College of the North Atlantic (CNA) seeking internal records and aggregate legal fees related to specific court cases. CNA initially withheld all records under section 30 (legal advice) of ATIPPA, 2015, claiming solicitor-client and litigation privilege. The College refused to provide the records to the OIPC for review, even after a summons was issued, citing jurisprudence that limited the Commissioner's oversight for solicitor-client privilege claims. The Commissioner found that CNA failed to conduct a reasonable search for records and did not meet its burden of proof for the privilege claims. Furthermore, the College's late claim of solicitor-client privilege for emails and meeting minutes was not accepted. The Commissioner recommended the release of all responsive records and that CNA confirm a pause on its email destruction policy for former employees.
Order Restorative Justice Association of British Columbia
Restorative Justice Association of British Columbia
An anonymous applicant requested their personal information from the Restorative Justice Association of British Columbia (the Association) under PIPA. The Association initially sought and received a time extension to respond to the request, but subsequently failed to provide a response by the extended deadline of December 31, 2025. The OIPC Adjudicator found that the Association contravened its obligations under PIPA s. 29(1) by not responding within the required timeframe. The Association's explanation for the delay, citing a secretary's departure and unmonitored emails, was not found to justify a further 30-day extension. Consequently, the Association was ordered to provide a full response to the applicant's request within two weeks, adhering to the requirements of PIPA ss. 28 (duty to assist) and 30(1) (content of response).