Federal (Canada) privacy & access decisions

This report addresses complaints against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) regarding its publication of personal information inadvertently disclosed by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). The CRA mistakenly mailed a spreadsheet containing taxpayers' personal information to a CBC journalist. The CBC subsequently published an article detailing the breach, identifying several affected individuals, and including their photographs. Complainants alleged the CBC contravened the Privacy Act by disclosing this information. The CBC argued that the information was obtained legally and that the Privacy Act does not apply to information collected, used, or disclosed for journalistic purposes under section 69.1 of the Act. The OPC found that the CBC's actions were purely journalistic and therefore fell under this exclusion, meaning the Privacy Act did not apply to the CBC's handling of the information.

• Whether the information published by the CBC constituted personal information under section 3 of the Privacy Act
• Whether the CBC's collection, use, and disclosure of the personal information was for journalistic purposes
• Whether the exclusion provision under section 69.1 of the Privacy Act applied to the CBC's actions

A complainant alleged that his Internet service provider (ISP) disclosed his personal information without consent to a newspaper columnist. The complainant had contacted the columnist for assistance in resolving a service dispute with the ISP. The ISP argued it had implied consent to disclose information relevant to the dispute. The OPC found that the personal information disclosed was not sensitive and that, given the complainant's actions and familiarity with the columnist's work, it was reasonable for the ISP to infer implied consent. The ISP also limited its disclosure to information relevant to the complaint. Therefore, the OPC concluded that the complaint was not well-founded.

• Whether the ISP had the complainant's consent to disclose information to the newspaper columnist
• Whether the personal information disclosed was sensitive
• Whether implied consent was appropriate in the circumstances
• Whether the ISP limited its disclosure to relevant information

A complaint was filed on behalf of RCMP members regarding the disclosure of informal disciplinary records to the Crown, arguing it was inconsistent with the Supreme Court's R. v. McNeil decision. The complainant contended that only records from formal disciplinary hearings should be disclosed. The RCMP maintained that both formal and informal misconduct records could be relevant under McNeil, and the OPC agreed with this interpretation, finding the complaint not well-founded. However, the OPC expressed serious concerns about the RCMP's policy of retaining disciplinary records until members reach 100 years of age, which is significantly longer than other police services. The OPC recommended the RCMP reconsider its retention policies, but the RCMP indicated it would continue its current practice.

• Whether the disclosure of informal disciplinary records to the Crown is consistent with R. v. McNeil
• Whether the RCMP's retention period for disciplinary records is appropriate

A group of Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) employees complained that a new policy requiring them to wear name tags displaying their surnames, instead of badge numbers, violated sections 7 and 8 of the Privacy Act. They argued this constituted an unreasonable invasion of privacy and made them vulnerable to violence and intimidation, as their names could be used to find personal information. The CBSA contended that the name tags were part of a service excellence initiative, promoted professionalism and accountability, and that an employee's name on a name tag falls under an exception to the definition of personal information in the Act. The OPC found that while a surname on a name tag is information about an identifiable individual, it falls under paragraph (j) of the definition of personal information, which excludes information relating to the position or functions of a government employee for the purposes of sections 7 and 8. Therefore, the OPC concluded that the policy did not violate the Act.

• Whether the surname of a Border Services Officer (BSO) displayed on a name tag constitutes "personal information" under section 3 of the Privacy Act
• Whether the surname on a name tag falls within the exception to the definition of personal information under paragraph (j) of section 3 of the Privacy Act
• Whether the CBSA's requirement for BSOs to wear name tags displaying their surnames violates sections 7 and 8 of the Privacy Act

A customer complained that his investment firm required an unreasonable amount of personal information on its "Know Your Client" (KYC) form as a condition for maintaining his Tax Free Savings Account (TFSA) and Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP). The firm requested details such as investment experience, annual income, spouse's income, dependents, assets, liabilities, and net worth. The firm argued this information was necessary to comply with the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC) KYC and suitability requirements. The OPC assessed whether the firm contravened PIPEDA Principle 4.3.3 by requiring consent for information beyond explicitly specified and legitimate purposes. The OPC found that the firm had explicitly specified its purposes, which were legitimate given IIROC's regulatory framework. The OPC also concluded that the requested information, including details beyond IIROC's standard Form 2, was necessary for the firm to meet its regulatory obligations. Therefore, the complaint was not well-founded.

• Whether the investment firm explicitly specified the purposes for collecting personal information under Principle 4.2 PIPEDA
• Whether the purposes for collecting personal information were legitimate under subsection 5(3) PIPEDA
• Whether the investment firm required more personal information than necessary to achieve the legitimate purposes as a condition of service under Principle 4.3.3 PIPEDA
• Whether the collection of personal information was limited to that which was necessary for the identified purposes under Principle 4.4 PIPEDA
• Whether information on investment experience was necessary to validate investment knowledge and assess risk tolerance
• Whether spouse's or partner's annual income was necessary to assess overall financial position and suitability
• Whether detailed assets and liabilities were necessary to establish net worth and understand financial situation

A woman complained to the OPC that Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) was putting her at risk of identity theft by publishing her full name and date of birth in the Canada Gazette, which is available online. This information was published as part of the enrollment process for the Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation Band. The OPC investigated whether this disclosure was consistent with the Privacy Act. The OPC determined that the disclosure was for the purpose for which the information was originally collected, which was for the identification and recognition of Band members. Therefore, the disclosure was permissible under the Privacy Act without the individual's consent. The complaint was found to be not well-founded, but the OPC recommended AANDC explore future options to mitigate identity theft risks.

• Whether the disclosure of full name and date of birth in the Canada Gazette was consistent with the Privacy Act
• Whether personal information can be disclosed without consent when it is for the purpose for which it was originally collected

A complaint was filed on behalf of a refugee, alleging that personal information about him was disclosed to a National Post reporter. The refugee was a passenger on the 'Ocean Lady' and was later identified in a news story as a fugitive sought by INTERPOL. The complainant named four federal institutions as potentially responsible for the disclosure: the Canada Border Services Agency, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The OPC's investigation confirmed the individual was a wanted fugitive with publicly available INTERPOL information. Due to journalistic confidentiality, the OPC could not determine how the reporter obtained the information. In the absence of evidence, the OPC found no support for the allegation that any of the named institutions disclosed the information.

• Whether any of the named federal institutions disclosed personal information about a refugee to a newspaper reporter
• Whether the publicly available INTERPOL notice constituted a disclosure by the institutions

A man complained that Canada Post checked his credit rating when he requested an online change of address. The OPC investigated whether Canada Post's practice of using Equifax for identity verification in online change-of-address requests violated the Privacy Act. The OPC found that Canada Post has a legitimate need to confirm identity to prevent identity theft and that it does not conduct a credit verification. However, the OPC was concerned that individuals were not adequately informed about the sharing of their personal information with Equifax. Canada Post implemented the OPC's recommendations to improve transparency.

• Whether Canada Post's use of Equifax for identity verification constituted a credit check
• Whether Canada Post had the statutory authority to collect personal information for identity verification
• Whether individuals were adequately informed about the sharing of their personal information with Equifax

An individual complained that the Public Service Commission of Canada (PSC) improperly collected and disclosed personal information about his medical release from the Canadian Forces. This information was collected for a program that grants priority consideration to former military personnel for federal public service positions. The OPC's investigation found that the complainant had provided written consent for the collection and disclosure of his medical release record for this specific hiring program. All aspects of the process were determined to be in full conformity with the Privacy Act. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed.

• Whether the Public Service Commission of Canada improperly collected personal information about the complainant's medical release from the Canadian Forces
• Whether the Public Service Commission of Canada improperly disclosed personal information about the complainant's medical release from the Canadian Forces
• Whether the collection and disclosure of personal information conformed with the Privacy Act

The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada filed a privacy complaint against the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) following media reports about an internal audit. The audit raised concerns about potential improper disclosure of farmers' personal information, including Social Insurance Numbers (SINs), to third parties like grain handlers and the Canada Revenue Agency. The OPC's investigation found that the CWB had appropriate protocols, procedures, and agreements in place to manage personal information. Specifically, the CWB did not disclose SINs to third parties and only shared personal data with the tax agency when legally required. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed as not well-founded.

• Whether the Canadian Wheat Board improperly disclosed farmers' Social Insurance Numbers (SINs) to third parties
• Whether the Canadian Wheat Board improperly disclosed other personal information of farmers to third parties

An individual complained that Canada Post required his driver's licence number to terminate his postal box rental. Canada Post stated it requires personal identification to prevent fraudulent use or closure of postal boxes and has used recorded ID to investigate illegal shipments. The OPC's investigation found that Canada Post has a statutory obligation to provide a secure postal service. The collection and use of personal information, including driver's licence numbers, was deemed consistent with this mandate. The OPC concluded that the collection of identification numbers was reasonable. The complaint was dismissed as not well-founded.

• Whether requiring a driver's licence number to terminate a postal box rental is a reasonable collection of personal information under PIPEDA
• Whether Canada Post's collection and use of personal information for security purposes is consistent with its statutory obligations

The Commissioner initiated a complaint against the RCMP regarding its handling of personal information collected by the Canadian Firearms Program and used by EKOS Research Associates Inc. to survey firearms licensees. The RCMP provided contact information to EKOS, which then collected demographic data and information on guns owned by respondents. The investigation found that EKOS did not provide identifying data in its report to the firearms program and met all contractual requirements for secure data handling. The Assistant Commissioner determined that the collection and use of information for a client-satisfaction survey was consistent with the purpose for which it was initially collected under the Privacy Act. The RCMP was also found compliant in providing information to EKOS, as the contract included appropriate confidentiality and security provisions. The complaint was therefore deemed not well-founded, though the OPC recommended the RCMP clarify its public information on data uses and conduct Privacy Impact Assessments.

• Whether the collection of personal information by the Canadian Firearms Program for a client-satisfaction survey was consistent with the purpose for which it was initially collected under the Privacy Act
• Whether the disclosure of personal information by the RCMP to EKOS Research Associates Inc. for the survey was compliant with the Privacy Act

An individual complained that the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) improperly collected information from his personal online blog after his term position ended. The complainant alleged that his tracking device showed visits from government computers. The OPC investigated whether the CBSA had inappropriately collected personal information. The investigation found that several CBSA employees had viewed the blog, but did so in a personal capacity, which was deemed to accord with the government's Acceptable Use Policy. The OPC found no evidence that the agency had collected personal information in connection with these visits. Therefore, the complaints were determined to be not well-founded.

• Whether the Canada Border Services Agency improperly collected personal information from the complainant's blog
• Whether employees viewing a public blog from government workstations constitutes collection of personal information by the agency

A public servant complained that Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) refused to provide her with personal information collected during an investigation under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, which had exonerated her. The OPC found that PWGSC correctly applied section 22.3 of the Privacy Act, which mandates refusal to disclose information created for whistleblower disclosures or related investigations. Therefore, the complaint was not well-founded regarding access to information. However, the OPC was concerned that individuals cleared of wrongdoing were not informed of their vindication. The OPC urged PWGSC to inform subjects when allegations are unsubstantiated, and PWGSC subsequently did so for the complainant. The Commissioner also asked the Treasury Board Secretariat to develop guidelines for all departments to inform individuals when allegations of wrongdoing are unsubstantiated, citing procedural fairness and natural justice.

• Whether the complainant had a right to access personal information collected during a whistleblower investigation
• Whether section 22.3 of the Privacy Act was correctly applied to refuse disclosure
• Whether individuals cleared of wrongdoing in whistleblower investigations should be informed of their vindication

The OPC investigated a complaint against the RCMP regarding the use and disclosure of personal information from the Canadian Firearms Program (CFP) to EKOS Research Associates Inc. for a survey of firearms licensees. The investigation examined whether the RCMP improperly used or disclosed personal information in contravention of sections 7 and 8 of the Privacy Act. The OPC found that the use of information for a client-satisfaction survey to improve CFP services was consistent with the original collection purpose, thus not contravening section 7. Furthermore, the disclosure to EKOS, acting as an agent under a contract with confidentiality and security provisions, did not contravene section 8. The complaint was therefore deemed not well-founded. The OPC noted that the CFP committed to updating its InfoSource entry and website to better inform the public about information use for surveys and acknowledged that a Privacy Impact Assessment would have been beneficial.

• Whether the use of personal information for a client-satisfaction survey was consistent with the purpose for which it was obtained or compiled under s.7(a) of the Privacy Act
• Whether the disclosure of personal information to EKOS Research Associates Inc. for the survey contravened s.8 of the Privacy Act
• Whether the personal information collected by the RCMP related directly to an operating program or activity of the institution under s.4 of the Privacy Act