Federal (Canada) privacy & access decisions

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) improperly withheld information under subsections 15(1) (national security, defence) and 19(1) (personal information) of the Access to Information Act concerning historical Canadian intelligence assessments. The OIC found that PCO was justified in withholding information under subsection 19(1). However, PCO failed to demonstrate how the release of distribution markings, names of former Communications Security Establishment (CSE) employees, a distribution list of allies, information on nuclear development programs, and technology transfer details would cause a reasonable expectation of harm under subsection 15(1). The Commissioner noted that similar information had been previously released by PCO and other institutions, discrediting PCO's claims of harm. Furthermore, the Commissioner was not satisfied that PCO properly exercised its discretion in deciding against disclosure. The complaint was found to be well founded, and PCO was ordered to disclose the records in their entirety, but PCO indicated it would not implement the order.

• Whether s.19(1) personal information exemption was properly applied
• Whether s.15(1) national security, defence exemption was properly applied to distribution markings
• Whether s.15(1) national security, defence exemption was properly applied to names of CSE employees
• Whether s.15(1) national security, defence exemption was properly applied to a distribution list of allies
• Whether s.15(1) national security, defence exemption was properly applied to information on nuclear development programs
• Whether s.15(1) national security, defence exemption was properly applied to information on technology transfer
• Whether s.15(1) national security, defence exemption was properly applied to information on a region-based working group
• Whether PCO reasonably exercised its discretion to disclose information under s.15(1)

The complainant alleged that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) improperly withheld information in response to an access request for final versions of documents. CMHC initially claimed exemptions under paragraphs 18(a), 18(b), 19(1), 20(1)(b), 21(1)(a), 21(1)(b), and section 23 of the Access to Information Act. During the investigation, the scope of the complaint was narrowed, and CMHC voluntarily disclosed some information previously withheld under paragraphs 18(a), 18(b), 21(1)(a), and 21(1)(b). The remaining information was withheld under paragraph 20(1)(b), concerning third-party financial, commercial, scientific, or technical information. The Information Commissioner found that CMHC and the third parties (TD Bank Financial Group and Andrew Kalotay Associates, Inc.) failed to demonstrate that the information met the requirements of paragraph 20(1)(b), as the third parties did not provide representations and CMHC could not show that all conditions for the exemption were met. Consequently, the Commissioner ordered CMHC to disclose all information withheld under paragraph 20(1)(b). CMHC agreed to implement the order.

• Whether s.18(a) ATIA (government trade secrets, government financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) was properly applied
• Whether s.18(b) ATIA (competitive position of government institutions, negotiations by government institutions) was properly applied
• Whether s.19(1) ATIA (personal information) was properly applied
• Whether s.20(1)(b) ATIA (confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) was properly applied
• Whether the information is financial, commercial, scientific or technical under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the information is confidential under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the third party supplied the information to a government institution under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether the third party has consistently treated the information as confidential under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether s.21(1)(a) ATIA (advice or recommendations) was properly applied
• Whether s.21(1)(b) ATIA (accounts of consultations or deliberations) was properly applied
• Whether s.23 ATIA (solicitor-client privilege) was properly applied

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) tabled a Special Report to Parliament summarizing investigations and advisory initiatives concerning the federal government's privacy practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. The report examined vaccine mandates for domestic travel, entry into Canada, and federal employees, as well as the ArriveCAN application, the collection of de-identified mobility data, and information sharing under the Emergencies Act. Overall, the OPC found that federal institutions generally complied with the Privacy Act, with some exceptions and areas for improvement. A significant finding was a breach of the Privacy Act by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) due to an error in the ArriveCAN app that inaccurately identified approximately 10,000 fully vaccinated travellers as needing to quarantine; this issue was subsequently corrected. The Treasury Board of Canada also contravened section 11 of the Privacy Act by not timely publishing a Personal Information Bank description, which was later rectified. The report also included a PIPEDA investigation where Biron Health Group improperly used personal information for marketing, which was settled. The OPC made several recommendations to various institutions regarding necessity, proportionality, transparency, and safeguarding of personal information, some of which were accepted, while others, like a recommendation to the Department of National Defence regarding oversight of a data system, were not. The report emphasized the need for modernized privacy laws and clear guidance for information sharing during crises.

• Whether the collection of COVID-19 vaccination status for domestic travel was lawful under the Privacy Act
• Whether the collection of COVID-19 vaccination status for domestic travel was necessary and proportional
• Whether the handling of personal information collected for domestic travel vaccine mandates was reasonable
• Whether the collection of COVID-19 vaccination status for entry into Canada was lawful under the Privacy Act
• Whether the collection of COVID-19 vaccination status for entry into Canada was necessary and proportional
• Whether the collection of federal employees' vaccination status and related medical/religious information was lawful under the Privacy Act
• Whether the collection of federal employees' vaccination status and related medical/religious information was necessary and proportional
• Whether the Monitor-MASS system used by DND/CAF had adequate oversight to prevent unauthorized access to personal information
• Whether there were inappropriate disclosures of personal information related to federal employee vaccination status
• Whether the Treasury Board of Canada contravened section 11 of the Privacy Act by not timely publishing a Personal Information Bank description
• Whether the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) took all reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of information in the ArriveCAN app under section 6 of the Privacy Act
• Whether the collection and use of de-identified mobility data by PHAC constituted the collection of personal information under the Privacy Act
• Whether Biron Health Group obtained valid consent under PIPEDA for using personal information collected for COVID-19 testing for marketing purposes
• Whether information sharing by RCMP, FINTRAC, and CSIS under the Emergencies Act complied with the Privacy Act
• Whether information sharing under the Emergencies Act was necessary and proportionate
• Whether there was clear direction and guidance for information sharing under the Emergencies Act
• Whether appropriate safeguards were in place for personal information shared under the Emergencies Act
• The need for modernized privacy laws to address necessity, proportionality, and de-identified information
• The importance of transparency and accountability in government initiatives involving personal information during crises

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) investigated 40 complaints against the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) and 19 other federal institutions regarding COVID-19 vaccination attestation requirements for federal employees. Complainants alleged unreasonable collection, lack of transparency, and inappropriate disclosure of personal information. The OPC found that the collection of vaccination status and accommodation information related directly to the institutions' operating programs and activities, such as health and safety and human resources management, and that transparency requirements under subsection 5(2) of the Privacy Act were met. However, TBS contravened subsection 11(1) of the Act by failing to update its personal information bank index within the required timeframe, though this issue was subsequently resolved. The OPC also found no systemic contraventions of disclosure provisions under section 8. While necessity and proportionality are not direct legal requirements of the Privacy Act, the OPC assessed the policy against these principles and found it to be necessary and proportional under the circumstances, despite weaknesses in TBS's documentation. The OPC recommended that TBS assess future privacy-invasive measures using a four-part test, a recommendation TBS did not commit to.

• Whether the information collected by institutions related directly to an operating program or activity of the institution as required by section 4 of the Privacy Act.
• Whether institutions properly met the transparency requirements of subsection 5(2) of the Privacy Act regarding informing individuals of the purpose of collection.
• Whether the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) complied with subsection 11(1) of the Privacy Act by publishing an index of personal information banks.
• Whether disclosures of personal information collected under the Policy were authorized under section 8 of the Privacy Act.
• Whether the collection of personal information was necessary and proportional, applying the OPC's four-part test.

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC) investigated 18 complaints regarding the collection, use, and disclosure of vaccination information by Transport Canada, VIA Rail, and CATSA for domestic air and rail travel mandates between November 2021 and June 2022. Complainants alleged unlawful privacy violations and unreasonable limitations on mobility. The OPC found that the collection of vaccination information by CATSA and VIA Rail was directly related to their operating programs and activities, specifically administering Ministerial Orders for transportation safety. Furthermore, the uses and disclosures of personal information by CATSA and VIA Rail, and the centralized collection and use by Transport Canada, complied with sections 4, 7, and 8 of the Privacy Act. While necessity and proportionality are not direct legal requirements of the Privacy Act, the OPC assessed these principles and found the collections were overall necessary and proportional. However, the OPC identified concerns with the broad scope of the Orders' objectives and Transport Canada's limited documentation of less privacy-invasive alternatives. Consequently, the complaints were deemed not well-founded, but Transport Canada accepted recommendations for future similar measures to better define objectives and document alternative assessments. This report highlights the need to better reflect necessity and proportionality in public sector privacy law.

• Whether the vaccination information collected by CATSA and VIA Rail was directly related to their operating programs or activities, as required by section 4 of the Privacy Act
• Whether the uses or disclosures of personal information by CATSA and VIA Rail were compliant with sections 4, 7, and 8 of the Privacy Act
• Whether the centralized collection and use of personal information by Transport Canada was compliant with sections 4, 7, and 8 of the Privacy Act
• Whether the collection of information was demonstrably necessary to meet a specific need
• Whether the collection of information was likely to be effective in meeting that need
• Whether there were less privacy-intrusive ways of achieving the same end
• Whether the loss of privacy was proportional to the need

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) investigated a complaint regarding erroneous quarantine notifications sent by the ArriveCAN application to approximately 10,200 Apple device users. These notifications, issued between June 28 and July 20, 2022, incorrectly instructed fully vaccinated travellers to quarantine due to a defect in ArriveCAN version 3.0. The OPC found that the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of personal information used for an administrative purpose, as required by subsection 6(2) of the Privacy Act. Specifically, the OPC identified shortcomings in rigorous pre-release testing, effective human intervention, and timely correction and recourse for affected individuals. The CBSA disagreed with the finding and refused to implement the OPC's recommendation to correct the inaccurate "quarantine_exempted" value in its database. Consequently, the complaint was found to be well-founded and unresolved.

• Whether the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) took all reasonable steps to ensure that personal information used for an administrative decision was as accurate as possible under subsection 6(2) of the Privacy Act.
• Whether the "quarantine_exempted" data field constituted personal information used for an administrative purpose by the CBSA.
• Whether the CBSA conducted rigorous pre-release testing for issues that could lead to the highest negative impacts on individual users.
• Whether the CBSA ensured effective human intervention with respect to high-impact decisions on individuals.
• Whether the CBSA provided effective and timely correction and recourse for individuals affected by inaccurate information.

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) investigated 12 complaints against the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) and Health Canada regarding their collection and use of de-identified mobility data during the COVID-19 pandemic. Complainants alleged PHAC secretly collected data on 33 million mobile devices. PHAC maintained it only used de-identified and aggregated data, arguing the Privacy Act did not apply as no personal information was collected. The OPC's primary issue was whether the mobility data constituted "personal information" under Section 3 of the Privacy Act, specifically if de-identification and safeguards reduced re-identification risk below the "serious possibility" threshold. The investigation examined two data streams, from TELUS and BlueDot, and assessed the de-identification techniques, aggregation levels, access controls, and contractual safeguards in place. The OPC concluded that the combination of these measures reduced the risk of identifying individuals below the "serious possibility" threshold. Consequently, the complaints were found to be not well-founded, as the data did not meet the definition of personal information under the Act. Despite this finding, the OPC made several recommendations to PHAC concerning ongoing assessment of de-identification techniques, due diligence with data providers, and enhanced transparency, which PHAC accepted.

• Whether mobility data collected and used by PHAC constituted "personal information" as defined under Section 3 of the Privacy Act.
• Whether de-identification techniques and safeguards against re-identification were sufficient to reduce the risk of an individual being identified below the "serious possibility" threshold.
• Whether access to data within TELUS's system constituted "collection" under the Privacy Act.
• Whether de-identification alone is sufficient to render mobility data non-personal.
• Whether robust contractual and physical protections were in place to limit access and use of de-identified data.
• Whether acceptable data aggregation levels and access controls existed for aggregated mobility data.
• Whether PHAC was sufficiently transparent with the public about its use of mobility data.

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) investigated 16 complaints against the Department of National Defence (DND) and the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) regarding their COVID-19 vaccination attestation requirements. Complainants alleged unreasonable collection, improper use, insufficient access controls in the Monitor MASS system leading to unauthorized disclosure, and inaccurate data. The OPC found that the collection of vaccination status information, including for accommodation requests, directly related to DND's operating programs for health and safety and operational readiness, satisfying section 4 of the Privacy Act. The use of this information was also deemed consistent with the purposes for which it was collected, in line with section 7. While concerns were raised about Monitor MASS access controls, the OPC found no evidence of actual unauthorized disclosures, thus deeming this allegation not well-founded, though it did recommend improved oversight which DND declined. Furthermore, DND was found to have taken reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of vaccination status data under section 6(2). The OPC also concluded that the measures were necessary and proportional given the pandemic context and the CAF's unique operational role.

• Whether the collection of personal information, including vaccination status and accommodation request details, by DND/CAF related directly to an operating program or activity of the institution as required by section 4 of the Privacy Act.
• Whether the use of the personal information collected under the Directive was authorized under section 7 of the Privacy Act, specifically for applying administrative consequences.
• Whether the use of Monitor MASS for collection and storage of CAF members' vaccination status resulted in unauthorized disclosure of information due to insufficient access controls, contrary to section 8(1) of the Privacy Act.
• Whether DND took reasonable steps to ensure that personal information used for determining the COVID-19 vaccination status of CAF members was accurate, up-to-date, and complete as required by section 6(2) of the Privacy Act.
• Whether the COVID-19 vaccination attestation requirements and associated information collection were necessary and proportional, applying the OPC's four-part test.

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) investigated complaints from federal public service employees against several separate employers regarding COVID-19 vaccination attestation requirements. Employees alleged that the collection, use, and disclosure of their vaccination status and accommodation requests contravened the Privacy Act. The OPC examined whether the information collected related directly to an operating program or activity (s.4) and if its uses and disclosures were authorized (s.7 and s.8). The OPC found that the collection was directly related to the employers' occupational health and safety programs and that uses and disclosures were consistent with the purpose of collection. Additionally, the OPC assessed the necessity and proportionality of these measures, concluding they were necessary and proportional given the emergency context of the pandemic. Consequently, the OPC found the complaints to be not well-founded. However, the OPC recommended that Canada Post Corporation refine its access controls for sensitive information and that all institutions conduct structured necessity and proportionality analyses for future privacy-invasive programs.

• Whether the information collected by the respondents related directly to an operating program or activity of the institution as required by section 4 of the Privacy Act
• Whether uses and disclosures of information relating to employee vaccination status and requests for accommodation were authorized under sections 7 and 8 of the Privacy Act
• Whether the information collected was necessary and proportional
• Whether the measure was demonstrably necessary to meet a specific need
• Whether the measure was likely to be effective in meeting that need
• Whether there was a less privacy-intrusive way of achieving the same end
• Whether the loss of privacy was proportional to the need