
Disclosure to Interpol raises concerns regarding electronic transmission of personal information
The complainant alleged that the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) improperly disclosed his personal information, including a judgment from his country of origin, to the High Commission of Canada in Ghana and subsequently to Interpol, without his consent. This disclosure occurred during the verification of documents submitted for his refugee claim, which alleged persecution by the Nigerian government. The CBSA argued the disclosure was a consistent use under the Privacy Act for refugee determination and enforcement of the IRPA, necessary to verify the authenticity of the judgment after other documents were found fraudulent. The OPC found that the disclosure itself was permitted under paragraph 8(2)(a) of the Privacy Act as a consistent use for refugee determination purposes, thus concluding the primary complaint was "not well-founded." However, the OPC raised significant concerns regarding the CBSA's lack of established procedures for such verifications at the time, and the use of insecure commercial email (Yahoo!) for transmitting sensitive personal information of a refugee claimant. The OPC emphasized the inherent sensitivity of such information and the potential risk to claimants, recommending that CBSA review and strengthen its procedures, particularly concerning secure transmission methods and training. The OPC also noted it lacked jurisdiction over the actions of Interpol or Nigerian authorities.
- 1Whether the disclosure of the complainant's personal information (including the Judgment) by CBSA to the High Commission and Interpol without consent contravened section 8 of the Privacy Act.
- 2Whether the disclosure was for a purpose consistent with the original collection under paragraph 8(2)(a) of the Privacy Act.
- 3Whether CBSA's procedures for verifying documents with countries of origin and Interpol were sufficient at the time of disclosure.
- 4Whether the electronic transmission of personal information via commercial email (Yahoo!) was secure and appropriate given the sensitivity.
- 5Whether the OPC had jurisdiction over alleged secondary disclosures by Interpol or Nigerian authorities.
- Disclosure of personal information: Disclosure permitted under Privacy Act
- Use of insecure email: Concerns raised, procedural review recommended
- Verification procedures: Concerns raised, procedural review recommended
- Jurisdiction over Interpol: Lack of jurisdiction noted
Complaint not well-founded, but OPC raised significant concerns regarding CBSA's procedures and secure transmission of sensitive personal information, making recommendations.
The OPC determined that the disclosure of the complainant's personal information to the High Commission and Interpol was a consistent use under paragraph 8(2)(a) of the Privacy Act, as it was necessary for refugee determination purposes to verify the authenticity of a document central to his claim.
- s.3 Privacy Act
- s.7(a) Privacy Act
- s.8(1) Privacy Act
- s.8(2) Privacy Act
- s.8(2)(a) Privacy Act
This summary is informational only and not legal advice.
Related by meaning
Decisions with similar reasoning and facts — found by AI across statutes and jurisdictions, not just keywords.
Coverage — 13 of 14 jurisdictions searchable
Fully searchable: Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador, Northwest Territories, New Brunswick, Manitoba.
Partial (recent decisions only): Federal (Canada) (651 of 1,631), Nova Scotia (49 of 472), Quebec (6 of 7,090), Prince Edward Island (2 of 279), Yukon (1 of 75).
Coming soon: Nunavut — being re-processed for AI search.
Find decisions like this one — by meaning, not keywords.
Related by meaning is a Pro feature. Upgrade to surface conceptually similar decisions across the corpus, powered by AI.
Upgrade to Pro