Federal (Canada) privacy & access decisions

The complaint alleged that the Parole Board of Canada (PBC) contravened the disclosure provisions of the Privacy Act when a human resources employee disclosed the complainant's medical information to individuals involved in a Public Service Staffing Tribunal (PSST) hearing. The PSST had specifically ordered the PBC to remove medical information from the material provided. The PBC acknowledged the disclosure, apologized to the complainant, and ensured the recipients disposed of the information. The OPC found that the complainant's medical information was disclosed without consent and not under any permitted disclosure provision of subsection 8(2) of the Act. Therefore, the OPC concluded that the complaint was well-founded.

• Whether the complainant's medical information constitutes personal information under s.3 of the Privacy Act
• Whether the disclosure of the complainant's medical information by the PBC contravened s.8(1) of the Privacy Act
• Whether the disclosure was in accordance with any of the permitted categories under s.8(2) of the Privacy Act

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.

• Whether 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.
• Whether the disclosure was for a purpose consistent with the original collection under paragraph 8(2)(a) of the Privacy Act.
• Whether CBSA's procedures for verifying documents with countries of origin and Interpol were sufficient at the time of disclosure.
• Whether the electronic transmission of personal information via commercial email (Yahoo!) was secure and appropriate given the sensitivity.
• Whether the OPC had jurisdiction over alleged secondary disclosures by Interpol or Nigerian authorities.

An individual complained that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) mishandled her personal information by disclosing that she had filed a harassment complaint against her Director. The complainant alleged that the Director revealed this information during a management meeting. The investigation confirmed that the Director disclosed at a management meeting that the complainant had filed a complaint against her, as evidenced by meeting notes and confirmations from attendees. While the Director claimed the information was also her personal information, the OPC found no evidence that the employees present at the meeting needed to know the complainant's identity. The OPC concluded that PSPC did not reasonably consider the appropriateness of disclosing the complainant's identity without her consent, violating the Privacy Act.

• Whether the disclosure of the complainant's identity as having filed a harassment complaint constituted personal information under s.3 of the Privacy Act
• Whether the disclosure of the complainant's identity was made without her consent
• Whether the disclosure was for a purpose consistent with the purpose for which the information was obtained or compiled, as per s.8(2)(a) of the Privacy Act
• Whether the employees present at the meeting needed to know the complainant's identity

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC) initiated a complaint against Health Canada (HC) after HC sent 41,514 letters to "Marihuana Medical Access Program" (MMAP) clients in windowed envelopes that allowed the program name to be openly visible. The OPC also received 339 individual complaints regarding this incident. Complainants were concerned that the visible program name revealed their association with MMAP to Canada Post employees and the public, potentially impacting their careers, reputation, and safety due to the stigma associated with marihuana. HC argued that the disclosure was implicitly consented to, was a consistent use of information, or was not an unlawful disclosure by HC. The OPC found that the combination of the MMAP name and the individual's name and address constituted sensitive personal information. HC failed to demonstrate appropriate consent or that any permissible disclosures under section 8(2) of the Privacy Act applied. The OPC concluded that HC contravened the Privacy Act.

• Whether the phrase "Marihuana Medical Access Program" combined with an individual's name and address constitutes personal information under section 3 of the Privacy Act
• Whether subsequent actions by individuals (e.g., media communication) alter Health Canada's obligations under the Privacy Act
• Whether mail recipients implicitly consented to the disclosure of their personal information under section 8(1) of the Privacy Act
• Whether the disclosure was a "consistent use" under section 8(2)(a) of the Privacy Act
• Whether limiting information on return address blocks would have broad implications for government communication

A former Canadian Forces member complained that the Department of National Defence (DND) prematurely destroyed an audio recording of his Progress Review Board (PRB) hearing, thereby contravening the retention and disposal provisions of the Privacy Act. The complainant argued that the recording was personal information used for an administrative purpose and should have been retained for a reasonable period to allow him access. DND contended the recording was a "transitory" record, destroyed after minutes were drafted, and that the complainant had implicitly consented to its disposal by signing the minutes. The OPC found that the audio recording contained personal information used for an administrative purpose and that the complainant had not consented to its disposal. Therefore, DND was obligated to retain the recording for at least two years.

• Whether the audio recording contained the complainant's "personal information" as defined by the Act
• Whether the personal information in the audio recording was used for an "administrative purpose"
• Whether the complainant consented to the disposal of the information
• Whether DND's classification of the recording as "transitory" exempted it from Privacy Act retention requirements

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

The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) inadvertently mailed the personal information of approximately 1,000 individuals to a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) journalist. This occurred due to an ATIP clerk mistakenly switching cover letters for two different response packages. The disclosed information included names, addresses, and details of donations. The CBC refused the CRA's requests to return the information, leading the CRA to initiate legal action. The OPC found that the CRA disclosed personal information without consent, contravening the Privacy Act. While the OPC noted the CRA's immediate remedial actions and action plan, it concluded that the disclosure did not meet the requirements of the Act.

• Whether the inadvertent mailing of personal information to a journalist constituted a disclosure without consent under the Privacy Act
• Whether the information disclosed was 'personal information' as defined by section 3 of the Privacy Act
• Whether the disclosure met the requirements of section 8 of the Privacy Act

A former RCMP member complained that the RCMP inappropriately collected her personal medical and financial information from Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) after she was awarded a disability pension. The complainant alleged that the RCMP's National Compensation Policy Centre had no need for this sensitive information. The OPC found that the 2002 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the RCMP and VAC transferred responsibility for pension administration to VAC, meaning the RCMP's National Compensation Policy Centre did not require the detailed medical diagnosis or financial information. The OPC concluded that the collection of this information by the RCMP was not for a purpose consistent with section 4 of the Privacy Act. The complaint was found to be well-founded, and the OPC recommended updating the MOU and reviewing RCMP's internal policies on access to medical records.

• Whether the collection of the complainant's financial information by the RCMP was necessary and related directly to an operating program or activity under section 4 of the Privacy Act
• Whether the collection of the complainant's medical diagnosis/pensioned disability by the RCMP was necessary and related directly to an operating program or activity under section 4 of the Privacy Act
• Whether the collection of the complainant's disability percentage by the RCMP was necessary and related directly to an operating program or activity under section 4 of the Privacy Act
• Whether the collection of personal information by the RCMP's National Compensation Policy Centre was consistent with the RCMP's own internal policies restricting access to sensitive medical information
• Whether the MOU between VAC and the RCMP adequately addressed information sharing practices for sensitive personal information

A former RCMP member complained that Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) inappropriately disclosed her medical diagnosis, disability percentage, and financial information to the RCMP's National Compensation Policy Centre. VAC argued the disclosure was a 'consistent use' under the Privacy Act, citing the RCMP's responsibility for members' health services and an MOU between the two institutions. The OPC found that the information provided to the complainant at the time of application was inadequate to establish informed consent for such disclosure. Furthermore, the MOU did not explicitly authorize the sharing of detailed medical and financial information with the RCMP's National Compensation Policy Centre. The OPC concluded that the disclosure was not a consistent use and therefore contravened the Privacy Act, noting the systemic nature of this issue affecting many RCMP employees.

• Whether the disclosure of the complainant's medical and financial information by VAC to the RCMP was authorized by consent under subsection 8(1) of the Privacy Act
• Whether the disclosure of the complainant's medical and financial information by VAC to the RCMP was for a consistent use under paragraph 8(2)(a) of the Privacy Act
• Whether the information provided to disability pension applicants by VAC was sufficient to establish informed consent for disclosure to the RCMP
• Whether the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between VAC and the RCMP authorized the detailed sharing of personal medical and financial information
• Whether the RCMP's National Compensation Policy Centre had a 'need to know' the complainant's detailed medical and financial information

An employee of the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) complained on behalf of colleagues that the CBSA was using video monitoring to collect personal information for the purpose of monitoring employee conduct and performance, beyond the original safety and security purposes. The complainant also alleged insufficient signage. The OPC found the signage issue was resolved early in the investigation as the CBSA added more signs. Regarding the use of video for monitoring conduct and performance, the CBSA updated its policy to clarify that video technology would not be used for performance monitoring. The OPC accepted the CBSA's rationale for using video recordings to investigate serious misconduct, finding it met the standard for collection under section 4 of the Privacy Act. However, the resolution was conditional on the CBSA providing updated guidelines for implementing its policy.

• Whether the CBSA's use of video monitoring for employee conduct and performance monitoring contravened the Privacy Act
• Whether the collection of personal information via video technology was necessary and related directly to an operating program or activity of the institution under section 4 of the Privacy Act
• Whether the CBSA had sufficient signage to inform employees of video monitoring

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 B.C. woman received a package from the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) containing her deceased daughter's tax information along with the confidential personal information of five other individuals. She attempted to report the data breach and return the misdirected information to the CRA through various channels, including phone calls and an in-person visit to a tax centre, but faced significant difficulties. Only after she contacted a CBC news reporter did the CRA take prompt action to retrieve the misdirected records. The OPC launched a Commissioner-initiated complaint and found that the CRA had breached the privacy rights of the taxpayers involved. The CRA committed to and implemented remedial measures to prevent similar incidents and improve its internal procedures for client service and misdirected mail.

• Whether the Canada Revenue Agency breached the privacy rights of taxpayers by mistakenly sending confidential personal information to an unauthorized individual
• Whether the Canada Revenue Agency's procedures for handling misdirected mail and breach reporting were adequate
• Whether the Canada Revenue Agency's client service channels were accessible for reporting privacy breaches

The Canada School of Public Service (the School) received a letter from the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner (PSIC) detailing allegations of wrongdoing against seven employees. The School then hand-delivered copies of this letter, which identified the seven individuals and the alleged wrongdoings, to each of the named employees. One of these employees complained to the OPC, alleging that the disclosure of his name via this letter violated the Privacy Act. The OPC found the complaint to be well-founded, concluding that the School had improperly disclosed personal information. Following the OPC's recommendations, the School developed new procedures to protect the confidentiality of information related to the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act and a plan for addressing privacy breaches.

• Whether the Canada School of Public Service disclosed personal information contrary to the Privacy Act by hand-delivering a letter from the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner to employees named in it

This report details an investigation into the loss of a USB key containing the personal information of 5,045 Canada Pension Plan Disability appellants from an ESDC office. The USB key, which was neither password-protected nor encrypted, contained sensitive data including SINs, medical conditions, and dates of birth. The investigation found weaknesses in physical, technological, administrative, and personnel controls at both ESDC and Justice Canada, as a Justice Canada lawyer had custody of the key when it went missing. The OPC concluded that both departments failed to translate their privacy and security policies into meaningful business practices. Both ESDC and Justice Canada accepted nine recommendations from the OPC to improve their protection of personal information.

• Whether Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) adequately protected personal information on a lost USB key
• Whether Justice Canada adequately protected personal information on a lost USB key while in its custody
• Whether physical controls for personal information were adequate
• Whether technological controls (encryption, password protection) for personal information were adequate
• Whether administrative controls for personal information were adequate
• Whether personnel controls for personal information were adequate
• Whether ESDC translated its privacy and security policies into meaningful business practices
• Whether Justice Canada translated its privacy and security policies into meaningful business practices

The Canadian Council for Refugees complained that the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) improperly disclosed an individual's personal information on its "Wanted by the CBSA" website. The program aimed to solicit public help in locating individuals with Canada-wide warrants for removal, including those accused of war crimes. The OPC found that while the disclosure of personal information was permissible under the Privacy Act as a consistent use for immigration law enforcement, the CBSA failed to ensure the information was accurate, up-to-date, and complete. Specifically, the website implied a conviction for war crimes when the individual was only deemed inadmissible under immigration law. This led to a well-founded finding regarding the accuracy of the information. The CBSA accepted five recommendations, including revisiting the amount of personal information disclosed, clarifying the distinction between criminal conviction and immigration determination, and improving the timely removal of profiles.

• Whether the disclosure of personal information on the "Wanted by the CBSA" website was permissible under the Privacy Act as a consistent use
• Whether the CBSA took all reasonable steps to ensure the personal information was accurate, up-to-date, and complete as required by the Privacy Act
• Whether the CBSA should have conducted a Privacy Impact Assessment before launching the program