Canadian privacy & access decisions

The complainant, an RCMP employee, alleged that the RCMP inappropriately used employees' personal information during a training course for Respectful Workplace Advisors on the National Administrative Records Management System (NARMS). During a data entry exercise, participants were given sheets containing real personal information of 91 employees, including names, ranks, and incident descriptions. The complainant raised concerns as participants were not advised real data would be used nor required to sign confidentiality agreements. The RCMP acknowledged that the use of this personal information for training purposes was not authorized under section 7 of the Privacy Act, as training was not a consistent use described in the applicable Personal Information Bank. The RCMP subsequently notified all 91 affected employees of the breach and took steps to prevent future occurrences. The OPC found the complaint to be well-founded.

• Whether the use of employees' personal information for training purposes constituted an unauthorized use under section 7(a) of the Privacy Act
• Whether training was a consistent use of personal information as described in the applicable Personal Information Bank (PIB PSU 915)

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