
PA-055322 (PCO) et PA-055323 (DOJ) — Privy Council Office (PCO) and Department of Justice (DOJ)
The OPC investigated a complaint regarding the unauthorized disclosure of personal information about Supreme Court candidate Chief Justice Glenn Joyal. Media reports claimed an anonymous source revealed a disagreement between the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) and the former Attorney General over Joyal's nomination. The complainant alleged breaches of the Privacy Act by the Privy Council Office (PCO), Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of the Commissioner of Federal Judicial Affairs (CFJA), and the PMO. The OPC determined it lacked jurisdiction over the CFJA and PMO, focusing its investigation on the PCO and DOJ. The investigation found no evidence that either the PCO or the DOJ had access to the specific information that was leaked, nor that the disclosure originated from these institutions. While no contravention was found, the OPC highlighted that Chief Justice Joyal's privacy was compromised and called for legislative reform to extend the Privacy Act's coverage to all government institutions, including Ministers' Offices and the PMO.
- 1Whether the Office of the Commissioner of Federal Judicial Affairs (CFJA) is a 'government institution' under the Privacy Act
- 2Whether the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) is a 'government institution' under the Privacy Act
- 3Whether the Privy Council Office (PCO) was responsible for the unauthorized disclosure of Chief Justice Joyal's personal information under section 8 of the Privacy Act
- 4Whether the Department of Justice (DOJ) was responsible for the unauthorized disclosure of Chief Justice Joyal's personal information under section 8 of the Privacy Act
- Jurisdiction over CFJA: No jurisdiction
- Jurisdiction over PMO: No jurisdiction
- Disclosure by PCO: No contravention found
- Disclosure by DOJ: No contravention found
Complaints not well-founded
The OPC found no evidence that the PCO or DOJ had access to the leaked information or were responsible for its disclosure, and determined it lacked jurisdiction over the other entities named in the complaint.
- s.2 Privacy Act
- s.3 Privacy Act
- s.8 Privacy Act
- s.29(1)(h)(ii) Privacy Act
- s.64(2) 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