Federal (Canada)Privacy ActNot well-founded

Privacy Act restrictions on use and disclosure do not apply to publicly available personal information

Organization: Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA)Complainant: Anonymous applicant
Plain-language brief

The complainant alleged that the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) contravened the Privacy Act by disclosing his personal medical information to his bondsperson. The CBSA had carbon copied the bondsperson on a letter containing details about the complainant's health changes while in CBSA detention. The CBSA argued that the information was publicly available because the complainant had included the same medical information in court documents as part of his litigation. The OPC found that the medical information was indeed publicly available in court records, making section 8 of the Privacy Act inapplicable under subsection 69(2). Therefore, the complaint was found to be not well-founded. The OPC noted that had the information not been publicly available, the disclosure would likely have constituted a breach of the Act, as the CBSA's operational bulletin did not sufficiently authorize the disclosure.

Key issues
  1. 1Did the CBSA disclose the complainant’s personal information?
  2. 2Was any disclosed information “publicly available”, such that subsection 69(2) of the Act excludes application of sections 7 and 8?
  3. 3If not, was the disclosure permitted under subsection 8(2) of the Act?
Outcome breakdownFavours: Institution
  • Disclosure of medical information: Disclosure not a contravention
  • Publicly available information: Information deemed publicly available
  • Applicability of s.8 Privacy Act: Section 8 inapplicable due to s.69(2)
  • Complaint outcome: Complaint not well-founded
Outcome

Complaint not well-founded

Reasoning

The OPC found that the personal medical information disclosed by the CBSA was publicly available in court records, which, under subsection 69(2) of the Privacy Act, renders the disclosure restrictions of section 8 inapplicable. Therefore, no contravention occurred.

AI-generated summary for reference only. Always verify against the official decision ↗
Decision notes
Statutes considered
  • s.3 Privacy Act
  • s.7 Privacy Act
  • s.8 Privacy Act
  • s.8(1) Privacy Act
  • s.8(2) Privacy Act
  • s.69(2) Privacy Act

This summary is informational only and not legal advice.

Pro · AI

Decisions with similar reasoning and facts — found by AI across statutes and jurisdictions, not just keywords.

Pro
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