BreachOfPrivacy

Canadian Privacy Decisions

The comprehensive archive of Canadian privacy decisions from federal, provincial, and territorial commissioners — with AI-summarized plain-language summaries for every decision.

395 decisions matching
Flag of British Columbia
British Columbia
Subscribers only
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act

BC OIPC order 120

Subscribe to access British Columbia decisions.

Flag of Saskatchewan
Saskatchewan
Subscribers only
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act

92/020 — Saskatchewan Economic Development Corporation

Subscribe to access Saskatchewan decisions.

Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActDiscontinued
Date not listed2025 OIC 41· Indexed Apr 21, 2026

Decision under section 31, 2025 OIC 41

A federal institution

The complainant alleged that a federal institution had failed to respond to an access request within the prescribed time limit, resulting in a deemed refusal. The Information Commissioner found the complaint inadmissible because it was not submitted within the 60-day time limit required by section 31 of the Access to Information Act. The Commissioner determined that the complainant's awareness of the deemed refusal began when the institution first failed to meet the statutory deadline, not on the date the complaint was filed.

Quick View

Access to Information ActDiscontinued

Decision under section 31, 2025 OIC 41

Date not listed2025 OIC 41
Plain-Language Summary

The complainant alleged that a federal institution had failed to respond to an access request within the prescribed time limit, resulting in a deemed refusal. The Information Commissioner found the complaint inadmissible because it was not submitted within the 60-day time limit required by section 31 of the Access to Information Act. The Commissioner determined that the complainant's awareness of the deemed refusal began when the institution first failed to meet the statutory deadline, not on the date the complaint was filed.

Key Issues
  • Timeliness of complaint submission under section 31 of the ATIA
  • Definition of 'day on which the requester becomes aware' for deemed refusals
  • Interpretation of 'ongoing' or 'continuing' deemed refusals
  • Applicability of Federal Court and OIC precedent on complaint timeliness
Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActDiscontinued
Date not listed2023 OIC 40· Indexed Apr 21, 2026

Notice under subsection 30(5), 2023 OIC 40

A federal institution

The Information Commissioner of Canada gave notice that she ceased investigating seventeen complaints. The complainant alleged that an institution's time extensions on seventeen access requests were unreasonable. However, the Commissioner found the requests were vexatious and substantively duplicative of a previous request where the institution's time extension was deemed reasonable. The Commissioner also noted the institution was providing interim responses as committed, and the complainant's actions suggested an attempt to circumvent previous findings.

Quick View

Access to Information ActDiscontinued

Notice under subsection 30(5), 2023 OIC 40

Date not listed2023 OIC 40
Adjudicator: Caroline Maynard
Plain-Language Summary

The Information Commissioner of Canada gave notice that she ceased investigating seventeen complaints. The complainant alleged that an institution's time extensions on seventeen access requests were unreasonable. However, the Commissioner found the requests were vexatious and substantively duplicative of a previous request where the institution's time extension was deemed reasonable. The Commissioner also noted the institution was providing interim responses as committed, and the complainant's actions suggested an attempt to circumvent previous findings.

Key Issues
  • Whether the complaints were vexatious
  • Whether further investigation was unnecessary
  • Whether the requests were duplicative of a previous request
  • Whether the complainant was attempting to circumvent previous findings
Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActDiscontinued
Date not listed2022 OIC 10· Indexed Apr 21, 2026

Decision under section 31, 2022 OIC 10

A federal institution

The complainant filed a complaint with the Information Commissioner's office regarding an access to information request. The institution provided its response in October 2021, including a notice that the complainant had sixty days to file a complaint. The complainant submitted their complaint in January 2022, which was outside the mandated timeframe. The Information Commissioner rejected the complaint because it was filed after the statutory deadline.

Quick View

Access to Information ActDiscontinued

Decision under section 31, 2022 OIC 10

Date not listed2022 OIC 10
Plain-Language Summary

The complainant filed a complaint with the Information Commissioner's office regarding an access to information request. The institution provided its response in October 2021, including a notice that the complainant had sixty days to file a complaint. The complainant submitted their complaint in January 2022, which was outside the mandated timeframe. The Information Commissioner rejected the complaint because it was filed after the statutory deadline.

Key Issues
  • Timeliness of complaint submission under section 31 of the ATIA
  • Mandatory nature of statutory timeframes under the ATIA
  • Commissioner's authority to extend statutory timeframes