The name of an individual is considered personal information if it is accompanied by information that is about the individual
The complainant, an air passenger rights advocate, requested access to all records about himself held by the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA). The CTA initially withheld 760 pages, arguing that most references to the complainant's name were not personal information because he was acting on behalf of an organization. The OPC found that the information was indeed personal information, as the organization was not a separate legal entity and the records contained views and information directly about the complainant. The OPC also found that the CTA incorrectly applied exemptions under section 26 (third-party personal information) and subsection 70(1) (cabinet confidences) in some instances, and over-redacted under section 27 (solicitor-client privilege). The complaint was found to be well-founded, and the CTA agreed to implement the OPC's recommendations to disclose the withheld information.
- 1Whether information relating to the complainant's advocacy activities, where his name appears, constitutes personal information under section 3 of the Privacy Act
- 2Whether the CTA correctly invoked paragraph 12(1)(b) to deny access to information it deemed not to be personal information
- 3Whether the CTA correctly withheld third-party personal information under section 26 of the Privacy Act
- 4Whether the CTA correctly withheld information under section 27 of the Privacy Act (solicitor-client privilege)
- 5Whether the CTA correctly withheld information under subsection 70(1) of the Privacy Act (cabinet confidences)
- Definition of personal information: Information about complainant acting for organization is personal information
- Application of s.26 exemption: Exemption incorrectly applied in some instances
- Application of s.70(1) exemption: Exemption incorrectly applied in some instances
- Application of s.27 exemption: Over-redaction under solicitor-client privilege
- Disclosure of records: Withheld information ordered disclosed
Complaint well-founded — conditionally resolved
The OPC found that the CTA incorrectly determined that the complainant's name and related information were not personal information. The OPC also found that the CTA improperly applied certain exemptions, leading to a finding that the complaint was well-founded, with the CTA agreeing to implement the recommendations.
The OPC recommended that the CTA provide the complainant with access to information previously withheld as non-personal, reconsider the application of section 26 for contractor information, disclose non-privileged sender/recipient/date/time information withheld under section 27, and release the portion of the email withheld under subsection 70(1) that refers to the complainant.
- section 3 Privacy Act
- paragraph 12(1)(b) Privacy Act
- section 26 Privacy Act
- section 27 Privacy Act
- subsection 70(1) 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