Federal (Canada) Privacy Decisions

A former member of the Canadian Armed Forces complained that the Department of National Defence (DND) wrongfully compelled him to publicly disclose medical information during a military summary trial. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) found the complaint was not well-founded. The OPC determined that the disclosure was made as testimony during a public military trial, consistent with the open courts principle and the National Defence Act. Since confidentiality was not requested, the disclosure was permitted under subsections 8(2)(a) and 8(2)(b) of the Privacy Act.

• Applicability of the Privacy Act to military summary trials
• Whether public disclosure of medical information during a summary trial contravened the Privacy Act
• The principle of open courts in military justice proceedings
• The concept of publicly available information under section 69 of the Privacy Act

A requester alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) failed to respond to an access to information request within the statutory time limit. The RCMP was deemed to have refused access as they did not respond by the due date. Although the RCMP cited high volume and resource pressures, the Commissioner found these reasons did not justify the delay, especially given the moderate volume of records. The complaint was found to be well-founded. An initial report with an intended order was issued, but the RCMP subsequently responded to the request, rendering the order moot.

• Failure to respond within statutory time limits
• Adequacy of reasons for delay
• Assessment of record volume and complexity

An institution applied to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline to act on an access request, claiming it was vexatious and an abuse of the right to access records. The institution noted the requester had submitted 893 requests over 17 years, many similar to the current one. The Commissioner found that 11 of the requests were duplicative and that the requester had not provided justification for resubmitting them. The Commissioner concluded that the volume and repetitive nature of the requests, combined with the requester's history of complaints, amounted to an abuse of the right of access.

• Whether the access request was vexatious
• Whether the access request constituted an abuse of the right to access records
• Whether the institution met the threshold for declining to act on the request