Canadian privacy & access decisions

The complainant alleged that the Department of Justice Canada improperly withheld a "Final report: Mandatory Minimum Penalties. Recommendations to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. Expert Panel on Sentencing Reform" under sections 14 and 21(1)(a) of the Access to Information Act. The Department argued that disclosure would harm federal-provincial affairs and that the report constituted advice or recommendations from internal-like advisors. The Commissioner found no reasonable expectation of harm to federal-provincial affairs, noting the report was six years old, drafted by volunteers, and did not detail active negotiations or provincial positions. Furthermore, the Commissioner determined that the report was prepared by external consultants, not employees or ministerial staff, thus falling under an exception to the advice and recommendations exemption. Consequently, the Commissioner ordered the Department to disclose the records in their entirety, and the Department agreed to comply.

• Whether s.14 ATIA (federal-provincial affairs) was properly applied to the records
• Whether disclosure of the report could reasonably be expected to harm the conduct of federal-provincial affairs
• Whether s.21(1)(a) ATIA (advice or recommendations) was properly applied to the records
• Whether the report was prepared by consultants or advisers who were not directors, officers, or employees of an institution or members of a minister's staff, as per s.21(2)(b) ATIA

The complainant alleged that the Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC) improperly refused to process an access request for records related to three companies. BDC argued that the requester had not confirmed their right of access and that any responsive records would ultimately be withheld due to statutory confidentiality obligations. The Information Commissioner found that the request met the requirements of section 6 of the Access to Information Act, as it was in writing, made to the correct institution, and provided sufficient detail. The Commissioner also determined that the complainant, a corporation located in Canada, had met the right of access under section 4 of the Act. BDC's demand for proof of identification and board resolutions was deemed an improper prerequisite to processing the request. The Commissioner concluded that BDC was obligated to process the request and issue a proper response under sections 7 and 10 of the Act. The complaint was found to be well founded, and BDC was ordered to accept and process the request.

• Whether the access request met the requirements of section 6 of the ATIA
• Whether the complainant, a corporation, met the right of access under section 4 of the ATIA
• Whether BDC's demand for proof of identification and board resolutions was a valid prerequisite to processing the request
• Whether BDC's refusal to process the request based on anticipated exemptions was appropriate

The complainant alleged that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) improperly withheld employee telephone numbers under paragraph 16(2)(c) of the Access to Information Act, claiming disclosure could facilitate the commission of an offence. The request was for a telephone list for the CRA Headquarters International and Large Business Directorate. The complainant also initially alleged an unreasonable search, but later withdrew this aspect of the complaint. The CRA argued that disclosing cell phone numbers, now widely used by employees, could lead to hacking, interception of communications, identity theft, fraud, and harassment, citing vulnerabilities like SS7 attacks. However, the OIC found that the CRA failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of a reasonable expectation of harm, noting that government devices are encrypted and employees are trained on security risks. The OIC also pointed out that some of the numbers were already publicly available, undermining the CRA's claim of harm. The Information Commissioner concluded that the CRA did not meet the requirements for applying paragraph 16(2)(c). The complaint was deemed well founded, and the CRA subsequently released the withheld phone numbers.

• Whether s.16(2)(c) ATIA (facilitating the commission of an offence) was properly applied to withhold employee telephone numbers
• Whether there was a reasonable expectation of harm from disclosing employee telephone numbers
• Whether the institution's security measures for government devices mitigated the risk of harm
• Whether the public availability of some employee telephone numbers undermined the claim of harm
• Whether the institution conducted a reasonable search for records

The complainant alleged that Health Canada improperly withheld information related to a COVID-19 Vaccine Periodic Safety Update Report under sections 13(1), 19(1), 20(1)(b), and 20(1)(c) of the Access to Information Act. The Information Commissioner found that Health Canada correctly applied section 13(1) and 19(1) to some information, but failed to reasonably exercise its discretion under section 13(2) for publicly available information. The Commissioner also found that Health Canada and the third party (Pfizer) did not establish that sections 20(1)(b) or 20(1)(c) applied. Consequently, the Commissioner ordered Health Canada to disclose information not covered by sections 13(1) or 19(1), and to re-evaluate the disclosure of section 13(1) information that is publicly available. Health Canada agreed to comply with the order.

• Whether s.13(1) ATIA applied to information obtained from the European Medical Agency (EMA)
• Whether Health Canada reasonably exercised its discretion under s.13(2) ATIA regarding publicly available information
• Whether s.19(1) ATIA applied to personal information that could identify individuals
• Whether Health Canada reasonably exercised its discretion under s.19(2) ATIA
• Whether s.20(1)(b) ATIA applied to confidential third-party financial, commercial, scientific or technical information
• Whether s.20(1)(c) ATIA applied to information that could cause financial impact or harm competitive position to a third party

The OPC investigated a complaint against Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) regarding its systematic practice of withholding access to certain personal information in its Global Case Management System (GCMS). IRCC's policy was to retrieve and process only a "Short Form" GCMS Report in response to access requests, even when individuals requested their entire file or specific content found in the "Long Form." The OPC found that the "History Section" of the GCMS file, which is part of the Long Form, contained the complainant's personal information and that IRCC's practice contravened Section 12 of the Privacy Act. While IRCC eventually provided the complainant with the requested Long Form, it did not agree to update its procedures to systematically retrieve and process the Long Form for all future requests. Consequently, the OPC found the complaint well-founded but not resolved, as IRCC had not committed to addressing the systemic issue.

• Whether IRCC's practice of providing only a "Short Form" GCMS Report in response to access requests contravenes Section 12 of the Privacy Act
• Whether the "History Section" of the GCMS file contains personal information
• Whether information in the "Long Form" GCMS Report is always exempt from disclosure
• Whether IRCC has an obligation to retrieve and process all records responsive to a Privacy Act request

This document is a compliance letter from Nova Scotia Power to the OPC, outlining actions taken and commitments made following a significant data breach that occurred in March 2025. The breach, caused by malware, led to the exfiltration of personal information belonging to approximately 375,000 current and 540,000 former customers. The compromised data included names, contact information, financial details, driver's license numbers, and SINs. The OPC received numerous complaints regarding the breach, including concerns about the collection and retention of SINs and the timeliness and method of notification to affected individuals. Nova Scotia Power has committed to deleting customer SINs (subject to legal requirements) and undergoing an external security assessment by October 2026. Upon satisfactory fulfillment of these commitments, the OPC's investigation will be discontinued.

• Whether Nova Scotia Power's security safeguards were adequate to protect personal information
• Whether Nova Scotia Power's collection and retention of Social Insurance Numbers (SINs) was appropriate
• Whether Nova Scotia Power's notification of affected individuals was timely and appropriate
• Whether Nova Scotia Power has taken sufficient corrective measures to address the breach and prevent future incidents

An employee of the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) filed a complaint after their personal information, including sensitive details about an accommodation request, was inadvertently made accessible to other CBSA employees through the Apollo information management system. The issue stemmed from improperly set permissions on an old ATIP file folder, which allowed document titles and sometimes the first line of emails containing personal information to be visible via Apollo's search function. The OPC found that the CBSA contravened section 8 of the Privacy Act by disclosing personal information without consent or legal authority. While the CBSA corrected the specific permissions and committed to broader reviews and improved naming conventions, it did not agree to implement mandatory and trackable training for employees on Apollo permissions management. Consequently, the OPC found the complaint well-founded but unresolved, as it was not satisfied that sufficient safeguards were in place to prevent recurrence.

• Whether the CBSA contravened section 8 of the Privacy Act by disclosing personal information without consent or legal authority
• Whether the CBSA appropriately responded to the unauthorized disclosure
• Whether the CBSA's proposed measures, without mandatory and trackable training, are sufficient to prevent future unauthorized disclosures

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada failed to respond to an access request within the statutory 30-day period and improperly handled the request before opening the file. The request sought correspondence related to the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA) concerning noise, flight path changes, passenger-based formulas, and airspace redesign. The investigation found that Transport Canada did not respond within the 30-day timeframe, largely due to delays from a primary Office of Primary Interest (OPI) in retrieving records, exacerbated by a building fire that prevented access to paper records. Electronic records were also not processed while waiting for paper records. However, the Commissioner found that Transport Canada did not improperly handle the request initially, as it reasonably sought clarification when the request did not explicitly name the institution. The complaint regarding the delay was found to be well-founded, and Transport Canada was ordered to provide a complete response within 120 business days. Transport Canada indicated it would not fully implement the order, stating it would provide an interim response instead.

• Whether Transport Canada responded to the access request within the 30-day period as per section 7 of the Access to Information Act
• Whether Transport Canada improperly handled the request before opening the file
• Whether Transport Canada met its duty to assist the complainant under subsection 4(2.1)

The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) failed to conduct a reasonable search for records related to a previous access request (A-2012-00683) and a 10-page "Lessons Learned" document. The OIC found that PCO did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that a reasonable search had been conducted, particularly regarding a second search by its Records Operations unit for which details were lacking. The Commissioner concluded that PCO did not conduct a reasonable search. Consequently, the complaint was deemed well founded, and PCO was ordered to conduct a new search, process any additional records found, and provide a supplementary response to the complainant within 36 business days. PCO did not indicate whether it would comply with the order.

• Whether the institution conducted a reasonable search for records

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) investigated a complaint against the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) regarding its personal information practices for monitoring employee on-site presence under the federal government's hybrid work model. The complainant alleged invasive collection, use, and disclosure of personal information, questioning TBS's compliance with sections 4, 6, 7, and 8 of the Privacy Act, as well as transparency, necessity, proportionality, and Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) requirements. The OPC found that TBS's collection of aggregated data for organizational compliance was for non-administrative purposes, authorized by existing statutes, and appropriately de-identified to fall outside the scope of the Act for disclosure. For individual compliance, managers primarily relied on observation and self-reporting, supported by internal guidance. While TBS's practices were largely compliant, the OPC encouraged TBS to update its Personal Information Bank (PIB) description for Physical Access Controls (PSU 907) to explicitly reflect the potential use of access logs in formal investigations and to clearly communicate this to employees. Overall, the OPC concluded that TBS's personal information handling practices were compliant with the Privacy Act.

• Whether the collection of employees' personal information for on-site presence monitoring was related directly to TBS's operating programs or activities under section 4 of the Privacy Act.
• Whether TBS's retention and disposal practices for personal information collected for on-site presence monitoring complied with section 6 of the Privacy Act, specifically subsections 6(1) and 6(3).
• Whether TBS's use of personal information for on-site presence monitoring was a 'consistent use' authorized under section 7(a) of the Privacy Act.
• Whether TBS's disclosure of aggregated on-site presence data to senior management constituted personal information under section 3 of the Privacy Act and complied with section 8.
• Whether TBS's transparency and openness related to its hybrid compliance monitoring approach, including standard Personal Information Banks (PIBs), was adequate under sections 10 and 11 of the Privacy Act.
• Whether TBS's personal information practices for on-site presence monitoring complied with the necessity and proportionality data principles.
• Whether TBS was required to complete a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) for its verification regime.
• Whether managers' practices for monitoring individual compliance with the hybrid work model contravened the Privacy Act.

The complainant alleged that Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) took an unreasonable extension of time to respond to an access request for Microsoft Teams messages and related policies. ISED claimed a 390-day extension, citing the volume of records, complexity, and the need for senior-level review, as well as internal and external consultations. The Commissioner found that ISED failed to demonstrate a link between the reasons for the extension and its length, or that a serious attempt was made to determine the necessary length. Specifically, the 240-day extension for volume and interference was deemed excessive, and the 150-day extension for consultations lacked sufficient justification. The Commissioner concluded that the extension was invalid, leading to a deemed refusal of access. The complaint was found to be well-founded, and ISED was ordered to provide a complete response within 60 business days.

• Whether the 240-day extension under s.9(1)(a) ATIA for volume and interference was reasonable
• Whether the 150-day extension under s.9(1)(b) ATIA for consultations was reasonable
• Whether ISED made a serious effort to assess the necessary length of the extension of time
• Whether there was a link between the reasons for the extension and its length
• Whether the calculation of the length of the extension was sufficiently rigorous, logical, and supportable
• Whether ISED was in deemed refusal under s.10(3) ATIA

An unnamed federal institution applied to the Information Commissioner for approval to decline to act on an access request, arguing it constituted an abuse of the right of access under subsection 6.1(1) of the Access to Information Act. The request sought extensive records related to rare diseases and medications, spanning from the earliest records to the present, across multiple departments and communication types. The institution contended the request was overly broad, would overburden its small staff, and required manual review of an unmanageable volume of records. The Commissioner found that the request, particularly its fifth part, was indeed overly broad and that responding to it would overburden the institution, which has only 15 employees and processes a modest number of pages annually. Despite the requester's offer to provide a more specific list of diseases, the Commissioner concluded that the institution had made reasonable efforts to assist and that the request would still be unduly burdensome. Consequently, the Commissioner granted the institution's application to decline to act on the request.

• Whether the access request is an abuse of the right of access under s.6.1(1) ATIA
• Whether the request is overly broad
• Whether acting on the request would overburden the institution
• Whether the institution met its duty to assist the requester under s.4(2.1) ATIA
• Whether the circumstances warrant granting approval to decline to act on the request

The complainant sought records related to the Canada Student Service Grant from Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC), alleging improper withholding of information under several exemptions and an unreasonable search for records. The Commissioner found that ESDC improperly withheld information claimed under paragraphs 20(1)(b) and 20(1)(c), determining that the institution failed to demonstrate the information's confidentiality, its financial/commercial/scientific/technical nature, or a reasonable expectation of harm from disclosure. For information withheld under paragraphs 21(1)(a) and 21(1)(b), the Commissioner concluded that factual information and final decisions did not meet the exemption requirements and that ESDC failed to reasonably exercise its discretion for other information that did meet the requirements. Similarly, while the majority of information claimed under section 23 met the requirements for solicitor-client privilege, some portions did not, and privilege was waived for other parts by the Privy Council Office. However, the Commissioner found that ESDC conducted a reasonable search for records, despite the complainant's concerns about missing emails, handwritten notes, and cabinet confidences. Consequently, the complaint was found to be well founded regarding the improper application of exemptions and the failure to exercise discretion. The Commissioner ordered ESDC to disclose specific information and to re-exercise its discretion for other information withheld under sections 21 and 23. ESDC notified the Commissioner of its intent to comply with the order, though it also indicated a desire to apply additional exemptions not raised during the investigation, which the Commissioner rejected.

• Whether ESDC improperly withheld information under s.16(2) ATIA
• Whether ESDC improperly withheld information under s.19(1) ATIA
• Whether the information met the requirements of s.20(1)(b) ATIA (confidential financial, commercial, scientific or technical information)
• Whether the information met the requirements of s.20(1)(c) ATIA (material financial impact or harm to competitive position)
• Whether the information met the requirements of s.21(1)(a) ATIA (advice or recommendations)
• Whether the information met the requirements of s.21(1)(b) ATIA (accounts of consultations or deliberations)
• Whether the information met the requirements of s.23 ATIA (solicitor-client and litigation privilege)
• Whether ESDC reasonably exercised its discretion to disclose information under s.20(5) ATIA
• Whether ESDC reasonably exercised its discretion to disclose information under s.21 ATIA
• Whether ESDC reasonably exercised its discretion to disclose information under s.23 ATIA
• Whether ESDC conducted a reasonable search for records
• Whether PCO waived solicitor-client privilege over certain information

An anonymous applicant complained that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) improperly withheld information under paragraphs 18(b) and 20(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act. The request sought annual rent figures for leases exceeding $500,000 signed by PSPC in specific cities between 2018 and 2022. PSPC and several third parties argued that disclosure would harm PSPC's competitive position and negotiations, and constitute confidential third-party financial information, also suggesting paragraphs 20(1)(c) and 20(1)(d). The Commissioner found PSPC's and the third parties' arguments for all claimed exemptions to be speculative, failing to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of probable harm or objective confidentiality. Specifically, the rent figures were not considered "supplied by" the third parties for the purpose of s.20(1)(b). Consequently, the complaint was found to be well founded, and the Commissioner ordered PSPC to disclose the records in full. PSPC subsequently gave notice that it would comply with the order.

• Whether PSPC improperly withheld information under paragraph 18(b) ATIA
• Whether disclosure of annual rent figures could reasonably be expected to harm the competitive position of PSPC under s.18(b) ATIA
• Whether disclosure of annual rent figures could reasonably be expected to interfere with contractual or other negotiations of PSPC under s.18(b) ATIA
• Whether PSPC's representations on harm under s.18(b) were speculative
• Whether PSPC improperly withheld information under paragraph 20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether annual rent figures constitute financial, commercial, scientific or technical information under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether annual rent figures are confidential by an objective standard under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether annual rent figures are publicly available
• Whether the circumstances give rise to a reasonable expectation that annual rent figures would not be disclosed
• Whether the relationship between PSPC and third parties would be fostered for public benefit by confidentiality of annual rent figures
• Whether annual rent figures were "supplied by" the third party to PSPC under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether third parties consistently treated annual rent figures as confidential under s.20(1)(b) ATIA
• Whether PSPC improperly withheld information under paragraph 20(1)(c) ATIA
• Whether disclosure of annual rent figures could reasonably be expected to result in material financial loss or gain to a third party under s.20(1)(c) ATIA
• Whether disclosure of annual rent figures could reasonably be expected to prejudice a third party's competitive position under s.20(1)(c) ATIA
• Whether third parties' representations on harm under s.20(1)(c) were speculative
• Whether PSPC improperly withheld information under paragraph 20(1)(d) ATIA
• Whether disclosure of annual rent figures could reasonably be expected to interfere with the contractual or other negotiations of a third party under s.20(1)(d) ATIA
• Whether third parties' representations on interference under s.20(1)(d) were speculative
• Whether the complaint was well founded under s.30(1)(a) ATIA
• Whether an order for disclosure should be issued under s.36.1 ATIA

The complainant alleged that Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) failed to conduct a reasonable search for records related to a video posted on Facebook. The request specifically excluded draft copies, media articles, and French records where English equivalents existed. During the investigation, it was discovered that ISC's Communications and Public Affairs unit had removed records deemed to be drafts, including logistics, filming arrangements, and approvals, based on their interpretation of the exclusion criteria. This led to an incomplete initial search. Following the OIC's intervention, ISC located an additional 1,087 pages of records. The Commissioner found that while the appropriate offices were tasked, the initial removal of records based on an incorrect interpretation of "drafts" rendered the search unreasonable. The complaint was found to be well-founded, and ISC was ordered to process the newly found records and provide a supplementary response.

• Whether Indigenous Services Canada conducted a reasonable search for records
• Whether the institution's interpretation of 'draft copies' exclusion was appropriate