The catalogue

Canadian privacy & access decisions

The comprehensive archive of federal, provincial, and territorial commissioner decisions — each with a plain-language summary.

22,080 decisions in the archive
AlbertaFreedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act
Alberta flag

F2004-024 — Alberta Finance

Subscribe to open Alberta decisions.

Unlock this jurisdiction
AlbertaHealth Information Act
Alberta flag

F2006-021 & H2006-001 — Capital Health

Subscribe to open Alberta decisions.

Unlock this jurisdiction
AlbertaPersonal Information Protection Act
Alberta flag

P2005-001 — Doctor Dave Computer Remedies Incorporated

Subscribe to open Alberta decisions.

Unlock this jurisdiction
AlbertaFreedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act
Alberta flag

F2005-024 — DAVID THOMPSON HEALTH REGION

Subscribe to open Alberta decisions.

Unlock this jurisdiction
AlbertaHealth Information Act
Alberta flag

H2004-003 — Palliser Health Region

Subscribe to open Alberta decisions.

Unlock this jurisdiction
Prince Edward IslandFreedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act
Prince Edward Island flag

PP-06-003 — Department of Health

Subscribe to open Prince Edward Island decisions.

Unlock this jurisdiction
Nova ScotiaMunicipal Government Act — Part XX (Information Access and Protection of Privacy)
Nova Scotia flag

FI-06-35(M) — Halifax Regional Municipality

Subscribe to open Nova Scotia decisions.

Unlock this jurisdiction
Nova ScotiaMunicipal Government Act — Part XX (Information Access and Protection of Privacy)
Nova Scotia flag

FI-06-39(M) — Halifax Regional Municipality

Subscribe to open Nova Scotia decisions.

Unlock this jurisdiction
Federal (Canada)Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActSettled
Federal (Canada) flag
Jul 24, 2006Settled Case summary #21Indexed Jun 30, 2026

Settled case summary #21 — A loyalty program

A loyalty program

An individual complained that a loyalty program shared his children's names and addresses with partner credit card companies, resulting in marketing materials being sent to the minors. The loyalty program stated it does not market to minors or share their information with partners. However, due to telephone account openings where birth dates were not mandatory, the children were not identified as minors in their profiles. This led to their information being shared for marketing purposes. The program acknowledged an overly long delay in correcting the issue, partly due to marketing lists being generated weeks in advance. The loyalty program sent an apology letter, and the mailings to the children ceased. The complaint was considered settled.

Quick view

Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActSettled

Settled case summary #21 — A loyalty program

Jul 24, 2006Settled Case summary #21
Adjudicator: Jennifer Stoddart
Plain-Language Summary

An individual complained that a loyalty program shared his children's names and addresses with partner credit card companies, resulting in marketing materials being sent to the minors. The loyalty program stated it does not market to minors or share their information with partners. However, due to telephone account openings where birth dates were not mandatory, the children were not identified as minors in their profiles. This led to their information being shared for marketing purposes. The program acknowledged an overly long delay in correcting the issue, partly due to marketing lists being generated weeks in advance. The loyalty program sent an apology letter, and the mailings to the children ceased. The complaint was considered settled.

Key Issues
  • Whether the loyalty program inappropriately disclosed personal information of minors to partner companies for marketing purposes
  • Whether the loyalty program adequately protected the personal information of minor members
  • Whether the loyalty program took appropriate and timely steps to resolve the complaint
Federal (Canada)Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActSettled
Federal (Canada) flag
Jul 21, 2006Settled Case summary #24Indexed Jun 30, 2026

Settled case summary #24 — A web-based company

A web-based company

An individual complained that a web-based company retained his personal information for too long after he cancelled his free trial membership. He also alleged that the company lacked accountability under PIPEDA, as it did not fully answer his privacy questions and had no designated privacy officer. The company explained that it retained personal information, including credit card details, to process rental requests, ship items, and prevent fraud, particularly to track individuals attempting to obtain multiple free trials. As a result of the complaint, the company revised its privacy policy to clarify retention purposes and periods for different types of information. It also trained its customer service staff and designated a privacy officer. The complainant was satisfied with these changes.

Quick view

Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActSettled

Settled case summary #24 — A web-based company

Jul 21, 2006Settled Case summary #24
Adjudicator: Jennifer Stoddart
Plain-Language Summary

An individual complained that a web-based company retained his personal information for too long after he cancelled his free trial membership. He also alleged that the company lacked accountability under PIPEDA, as it did not fully answer his privacy questions and had no designated privacy officer. The company explained that it retained personal information, including credit card details, to process rental requests, ship items, and prevent fraud, particularly to track individuals attempting to obtain multiple free trials. As a result of the complaint, the company revised its privacy policy to clarify retention purposes and periods for different types of information. It also trained its customer service staff and designated a privacy officer. The complainant was satisfied with these changes.

Key Issues
  • Whether the web-based company retained personal information for too long after a free trial cancellation
  • Whether the web-based company was fully accountable under PIPEDA
  • Whether the web-based company adequately answered privacy-related questions
  • Whether the web-based company had a designated person responsible for handling privacy issues
SaskatchewanHealth Information Protection Act
Saskatchewan flag

REPORT H-2006-001 — Saskatoon Regional Health Authority

Subscribe to open Saskatchewan decisions.

Unlock this jurisdiction
British ColumbiaFreedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act
British Columbia flag

Decision F06-05

Subscribe to open British Columbia decisions.

Unlock this jurisdiction
Nova ScotiaMunicipal Government Act — Part XX (Information Access and Protection of Privacy)
Nova Scotia flag

FI-06-26(M) — Southwest Shore Development Authority

Subscribe to open Nova Scotia decisions.

Unlock this jurisdiction
British ColumbiaFreedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act
British Columbia flag

F06-16 — BC OIPC order 821

Subscribe to open British Columbia decisions.

Unlock this jurisdiction
Prince Edward IslandFreedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act
Prince Edward Island flag

PP-06-002 — Workers Compensation Board

Subscribe to open Prince Edward Island decisions.

Unlock this jurisdiction