Canadian Privacy Decisions

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada investigated two complaints concerning the disclosure of a military officer's personal health information. The Department of National Defence (DND) disclosed the information to the Department of Justice (DOJ) to defend against litigation initiated by the complainant against the government. The OPC found that both the disclosure by DND and the collection by DOJ were permissible under paragraph 8(2)(d) of the Privacy Act, as the information was disclosed to the Attorney General for use in legal proceedings involving the Crown. The OPC concluded that the Privacy Act does not distinguish between types of personal information and that the disclosure was necessary for legal defence, upholding the legal interpretation confirmed by the Federal Court.

• Permissibility of disclosing personal health information for litigation purposes under paragraph 8(2)(d) of the Privacy Act.
• Whether the collection of personal medical information by the Department of Justice was a contravention of the Privacy Act.
• Whether the disclosure of personal medical information by the Department of National Defence was a contravention of the Privacy Act.
• The scope and interpretation of paragraph 8(2)(d) of the Privacy Act regarding disclosures to the Attorney General for legal proceedings.

This investigation examined complaints concerning Statistics Canada's collection of personal financial and credit information from a credit bureau and financial institutions for two projects. The OPC found Statistics Canada had the legal authority for the Credit Information Project, deeming that aspect not well-founded. However, the OPC had serious concerns that the Financial Transactions Project, as originally designed, would have exceeded Statistics Canada's legal authority. As this project was halted before any data was collected, no finding was made. Despite finding no contravention of the Privacy Act, the OPC identified significant privacy concerns regarding necessity, proportionality, and transparency in both projects as originally designed, and made recommendations for improvement.

• Legal authority for collecting personal information under the Statistics Act and Privacy Act
• Necessity and proportionality of collecting sensitive personal information
• Adequacy of transparency regarding data collection
• Safeguards for handling collected personal information

This report details the OPC's investigation into six complaints concerning the Canada Border Services Agency's (CBSA) search of travellers' digital devices at the border. The OPC found that the CBSA contravened the Privacy Act by failing to adhere to its own policies and legal authorities regarding these searches, particularly concerning the scope of data accessed and the lack of proper documentation. The CBSA accepted most operational recommendations for improvement but disagreed with recommendations for legislative reform.

• CBSA's authority to examine digital devices at the border under the Customs Act
• Compliance with CBSA's internal policy on digital device examinations
• Collection and retention of personal information from digital devices
• Adequacy of training and oversight for CBSA officers

Three complainants alleged that Correctional Service Canada (CSC) was using video footage collected for security purposes to monitor employee performance. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) investigated and found that CSC used the footage to identify systemic deficiencies in patrols following an inmate's death, aiming to improve security and prevent future deaths. The OPC determined this use was consistent with the original purpose of collection (security) and therefore not a contravention of the Privacy Act.

• Was CSC using video footage to monitor employee performance?
• Was the use of video footage for identifying and addressing security deficiencies consistent with the original purpose of collection?
• Did the use of video footage contravene the Privacy Act's use provisions?

The complainant alleged that Global Affairs Canada (GAC) improperly collected personal information from his diplomatic passport for an administrative investigation. The complainant had used his diplomatic passport for personal travel, and GAC requested the original passport as evidence. GAC did not demonstrate how the personal travel information collected related to its operating programs or activities, nor did it provide sufficient cooperation to confirm its authority to collect this information.

• Whether GAC had the authority to collect personal travel information from a diplomatic passport.
• Whether the collection of personal travel information related directly to GAC's operating programs or activities.
• Whether GAC provided sufficient information regarding the administrative investigation and its authority to collect the passport.

The complainant alleged that Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) contravened the Privacy Act by collecting his personal information for a second time, despite his previous objection, through a third-party company. The OPC found that while ESDC's collection was not for an administrative purpose directly affecting the complainant, it failed to comply with section 4 of the Act because the information was not collected in accordance with the terms of its program, as the third party had obtained the information without consent. ESDC also continued to use the complainant's information despite his request to be removed from the list.

• Collection of personal information without consent
• Collection of personal information from a third party
• ESDC's responsibility to ensure third-party compliance with contractual obligations
• ESDC's continued collection of information after a request for removal

The complainant, an air passenger rights advocate, requested access to records about himself from the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA). The CTA denied access to most records, arguing the information was not personal information, or that it was exempt under various provisions of the Privacy Act. The OPC found that the CTA had erred in withholding information and improperly invoked exemptions under section 70(1). However, most information withheld under sections 26 and 27 was found to be properly exempted, with specific exceptions.

• Whether records containing the complainant's name and discussions about his advocacy activities constituted personal information under the Privacy Act.
• Whether information withheld under paragraph 12(1)(b) was properly excluded from the scope of accessible personal information.
• Whether information was correctly exempted under sections 26 (third-party personal information), 27 (solicitor-client privilege), and subsection 70(1) (cabinet confidences).