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.

42 decisions matching
Federal (Canada)Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActWell-founded & resolved
Mar 22, 2021PIPEDA Findings #2021-008· Indexed Apr 12, 2026

PIPEDA Findings #2021-008: Transportation company's constant surveillance of drivers is more intrusive than necessary

Oculus Transport Ltd.

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) investigated a complaint from a truck driver alleging that his employer, Oculus Transport Ltd., collected personal information through audio surveillance in the truck cab for inappropriate purposes. The OPC found that while Oculus had a legitimate business need for some surveillance, the continuous audio recording, even when drivers were off-duty, was excessively intrusive and disproportionate to the benefits. Oculus has since stopped using audio surveillance.

Quick View

Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActWell-founded & resolved

PIPEDA Findings #2021-008: Transportation company's constant surveillance of drivers is more intrusive than necessary

Mar 22, 2021PIPEDA Findings #2021-008
Adjudicator: Daniel Therrien
Plain-Language Summary

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) investigated a complaint from a truck driver alleging that his employer, Oculus Transport Ltd., collected personal information through audio surveillance in the truck cab for inappropriate purposes. The OPC found that while Oculus had a legitimate business need for some surveillance, the continuous audio recording, even when drivers were off-duty, was excessively intrusive and disproportionate to the benefits. Oculus has since stopped using audio surveillance.

Key Issues
  • Whether the purposes for which Oculus collected audio recordings were appropriate under PIPEDA's section 5(3).
  • Whether less privacy-invasive means were available to Oculus to achieve its stated purposes.
  • Whether the intrusion on drivers' privacy was proportionate to the benefits gained by Oculus.
Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActNot well-founded
Mar 18, 20215819-00626· Indexed Apr 21, 2026

Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (Re), 2021 OIC 8

Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada

The complainant alleged that Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) took an unreasonable extension of time to respond to an access request for information related to the Competition Bureau's bread price-fixing investigation. The request involved over 75 million pages of records. ISED calculated the extension by considering the volume of records, the time needed for the program area to gather records, and the time needed by the Access to Information and Privacy Office to analyze exemptions. The Information Commissioner found the complaint not well founded, agreeing that the extension was reasonable and that ISED followed the proper procedures.

Quick View

Access to Information ActNot well-founded

Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (Re), 2021 OIC 8

Mar 18, 20215819-00626
Adjudicator: Caroline Maynard
Plain-Language Summary

The complainant alleged that Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) took an unreasonable extension of time to respond to an access request for information related to the Competition Bureau's bread price-fixing investigation. The request involved over 75 million pages of records. ISED calculated the extension by considering the volume of records, the time needed for the program area to gather records, and the time needed by the Access to Information and Privacy Office to analyze exemptions. The Information Commissioner found the complaint not well founded, agreeing that the extension was reasonable and that ISED followed the proper procedures.

Key Issues
  • Whether the extension of time taken by the institution was reasonable under paragraph 9(1)(a) of the Access to Information Act.
  • Whether the request involved a large number of records or required searching through a large number of records.
  • Whether meeting the 30-day deadline would unreasonably interfere with the institution's operations.
  • Whether the duration of the extension was reasonable given the circumstances.
Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActWell-founded
Mar 16, 20213217-01373· Indexed Apr 21, 2026

3217-01373 — Public Safety Canada and Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Public Safety Canada

The complainant alleged that Public Safety Canada refused to process an access request for records related to various keywords. Public Safety argued parts of the request did not meet the Act's requirements and processing it would be overly burdensome. The Commissioner found the complaint well-founded, agreeing that some parts of the request were too vague but that Public Safety improperly refused to process the parts that did meet the criteria. Public Safety Canada committed to processing 5,000 pages per year of the relevant records.

Quick View

Access to Information ActWell-founded

3217-01373 — Public Safety Canada and Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Mar 16, 20213217-01373
Adjudicator: Caroline Maynard
Plain-Language Summary

The complainant alleged that Public Safety Canada refused to process an access request for records related to various keywords. Public Safety argued parts of the request did not meet the Act's requirements and processing it would be overly burdensome. The Commissioner found the complaint well-founded, agreeing that some parts of the request were too vague but that Public Safety improperly refused to process the parts that did meet the criteria. Public Safety Canada committed to processing 5,000 pages per year of the relevant records.

Key Issues
  • Adequacy of the request details under section 6 of the ATIA
  • Institution's obligation to process requests in parts
  • Institution's duty to assist requesters
  • Timely processing of large volumes of records
Federal (Canada)Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActWell-founded & conditionally resolved
Mar 15, 2021PIPEDA Findings #2021-005· Indexed Apr 12, 2026

PIPEDA Findings #2021-005: Staying signed in by default to email services poses serious privacy concerns for users accessing their email on a public or shared computer

Yahoo! Canada

This investigation concerned Yahoo! Canada's "Stay signed in" feature for its email service, which defaulted to keeping users logged in. The OPC found this practice posed significant privacy risks, especially on public or shared computers, as emails can contain highly sensitive personal information. Yahoo was found to have inadequate safeguards and failed to obtain meaningful consent for the disclosure of personal information that could result from this default setting. Yahoo committed to changing the feature to an opt-in basis and providing clearer warnings to users.

Quick View

Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActWell-founded & conditionally resolved

PIPEDA Findings #2021-005: Staying signed in by default to email services poses serious privacy concerns for users accessing their email on a public or shared computer

Mar 15, 2021PIPEDA Findings #2021-005
Adjudicator: Daniel Therrien
Plain-Language Summary

This investigation concerned Yahoo! Canada's "Stay signed in" feature for its email service, which defaulted to keeping users logged in. The OPC found this practice posed significant privacy risks, especially on public or shared computers, as emails can contain highly sensitive personal information. Yahoo was found to have inadequate safeguards and failed to obtain meaningful consent for the disclosure of personal information that could result from this default setting. Yahoo committed to changing the feature to an opt-in basis and providing clearer warnings to users.

Key Issues
  • Adequacy of safeguards against unauthorized access to sensitive email content.
  • Whether "Stay signed in" default setting constitutes meaningful consent for disclosure of personal information.
  • Clarity and prominence of privacy warnings associated with the "Stay signed in" feature.
Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActWell-founded
Mar 12, 20215820-00869· Indexed Apr 21, 2026

Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Re), 2021 OIC 6

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) improperly withheld information under subsection 19(1) of the Access to Information Act related to a follow-up investigation concerning a Code of Conduct decision against the complainant. The RCMP initially withheld information, but later released some of it, conceding it was not personal information. However, they continued to withhold other information under subsection 19(1). The OIC concluded that the remaining withheld information was indeed personal information concerning another individual and did not meet the exceptions in subsection 19(2), therefore the complaint was well founded.

Quick View

Access to Information ActWell-founded

Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Re), 2021 OIC 6

Mar 12, 20215820-00869
Adjudicator: Caroline Maynard
Plain-Language Summary

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) improperly withheld information under subsection 19(1) of the Access to Information Act related to a follow-up investigation concerning a Code of Conduct decision against the complainant. The RCMP initially withheld information, but later released some of it, conceding it was not personal information. However, they continued to withhold other information under subsection 19(1). The OIC concluded that the remaining withheld information was indeed personal information concerning another individual and did not meet the exceptions in subsection 19(2), therefore the complaint was well founded.

Key Issues
  • Application of subsection 19(1) (personal information) of the ATIA
  • Whether withheld information constituted personal information of another individual
  • Whether the exceptions in subsection 19(2) of the ATIA applied
Federal (Canada)Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActWell-founded
Mar 12, 2021PIPEDA Findings #2021-006· Indexed Apr 12, 2026

PIPEDA Findings #2021-006: A short-term lender collects online banking credentials in the course of payday loan applications

CashHere

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) investigated a short-term lender, CashHere, after receiving an alert that it was collecting clients' online banking credentials (usernames, passwords, security questions and answers) as part of its payday loan application process. The OPC found that while the lender had a legitimate need to verify identity and income, collecting these highly sensitive credentials was not a purpose that a reasonable person would consider appropriate due to the significant privacy risks and the availability of less invasive alternatives. The investigation also uncovered a related entity, MoneyHome, engaging in similar practices.

Quick View

Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActWell-founded

PIPEDA Findings #2021-006: A short-term lender collects online banking credentials in the course of payday loan applications

Mar 12, 2021PIPEDA Findings #2021-006
Adjudicator: Daniel Therrien
Plain-Language Summary

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) investigated a short-term lender, CashHere, after receiving an alert that it was collecting clients' online banking credentials (usernames, passwords, security questions and answers) as part of its payday loan application process. The OPC found that while the lender had a legitimate need to verify identity and income, collecting these highly sensitive credentials was not a purpose that a reasonable person would consider appropriate due to the significant privacy risks and the availability of less invasive alternatives. The investigation also uncovered a related entity, MoneyHome, engaging in similar practices.

Key Issues
  • Appropriateness of collecting online banking credentials for loan applications
  • Proportionality of privacy harms versus lender benefits
  • Availability of less privacy-invasive means to verify identity and income
  • Potential link between CashHere and MoneyHome
Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActNot well-founded
Mar 5, 20212021 OIC 5· Indexed Apr 21, 2026

Canadian Security Intelligence Service (Re), 2021 OIC 5

Canadian Security Intelligence Service

The complainant alleged that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) took an unreasonable amount of time to respond to an access to information request, specifically concerning a time extension for consultations. CSIS argued that the extension was necessary due to the sensitivity of the records, the need for on-site review, and limited workplace access, all exacerbated by the pandemic. The OIC found that CSIS made a reasonable effort to assess the extension period and concluded that the time taken was justified given the circumstances.

Quick View

Access to Information ActNot well-founded

Canadian Security Intelligence Service (Re), 2021 OIC 5

Mar 5, 20212021 OIC 5
Adjudicator: Caroline Maynard
Plain-Language Summary

The complainant alleged that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) took an unreasonable amount of time to respond to an access to information request, specifically concerning a time extension for consultations. CSIS argued that the extension was necessary due to the sensitivity of the records, the need for on-site review, and limited workplace access, all exacerbated by the pandemic. The OIC found that CSIS made a reasonable effort to assess the extension period and concluded that the time taken was justified given the circumstances.

Key Issues
  • Reasonableness of time extension for consultations under paragraph 9(1)(b) of the ATIA.
  • Impact of the pandemic on the ability of institutions to complete consultations within the standard timeframes.
  • Whether CSIS adequately demonstrated the necessity and duration of the time extension.
Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActWell-founded
Feb 24, 20212021 OIC 26· Indexed Apr 21, 2026

Global Affairs Canada (Re), 2021 OIC 26

Global Affairs Canada

The Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) received nine complaints concerning Global Affairs Canada's failure to meet deadlines or take unreasonable time extensions in responding to access requests. In four cases, the institution cited the COVID-19 pandemic as a significant factor. Global Affairs committed to finalizing all nine requests by October 15, 2021. The OIC found all nine complaints to be well founded.

Quick View

Access to Information ActWell-founded

Global Affairs Canada (Re), 2021 OIC 26

Feb 24, 20212021 OIC 26
Adjudicator: Caroline Maynard
Plain-Language Summary

The Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) received nine complaints concerning Global Affairs Canada's failure to meet deadlines or take unreasonable time extensions in responding to access requests. In four cases, the institution cited the COVID-19 pandemic as a significant factor. Global Affairs committed to finalizing all nine requests by October 15, 2021. The OIC found all nine complaints to be well founded.

Key Issues
  • Timeliness of response to access to information requests
  • Impact of COVID-19 on institution's ability to process requests
  • Reasonableness of time extensions
Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActNot well-founded
Feb 9, 20215820-00879· Indexed Apr 21, 2026

5820-00879 — Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) improperly withheld information under paragraph 16(1)(a) of the Access to Information Act. The OIC found that the withheld information was obtained by the RCMP during a lawful investigation related to the suppression of crime and was created less than 20 years before the request. The OIC was also satisfied that the RCMP reasonably exercised its discretion in deciding to withhold the information.

Quick View

Access to Information ActNot well-founded

5820-00879 — Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Feb 9, 20215820-00879
Adjudicator: Caroline Maynard
Plain-Language Summary

The complainant alleged that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) improperly withheld information under paragraph 16(1)(a) of the Access to Information Act. The OIC found that the withheld information was obtained by the RCMP during a lawful investigation related to the suppression of crime and was created less than 20 years before the request. The OIC was also satisfied that the RCMP reasonably exercised its discretion in deciding to withhold the information.

Key Issues
  • Whether the information was obtained or prepared by an investigative body in the course of a lawful investigation pertaining to the detection, prevention or suppression of crime.
  • Whether the information came into existence less than twenty years prior to the request.
  • Whether the RCMP reasonably exercised its discretion to withhold the information.
Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActNot well-founded
Feb 3, 20215819-01344· Indexed Apr 21, 2026

5819-01344 — Canada Revenue Agency

Canada Revenue Agency

The complainant alleged that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) improperly withheld information concerning a specific individual's business ownership under subsection 24(1) of the Access to Information Act. The OIC found that the requested information was about an identifiable taxpayer (not the complainant) and was obtained by the CRA for the purposes of administering the Income Tax Act. As section 241 of the Income Tax Act restricts the disclosure of such information, the OIC concluded the CRA properly withheld the records.

Quick View

Access to Information ActNot well-founded

5819-01344 — Canada Revenue Agency

Feb 3, 20215819-01344
Adjudicator: Caroline Maynard
Plain-Language Summary

The complainant alleged that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) improperly withheld information concerning a specific individual's business ownership under subsection 24(1) of the Access to Information Act. The OIC found that the requested information was about an identifiable taxpayer (not the complainant) and was obtained by the CRA for the purposes of administering the Income Tax Act. As section 241 of the Income Tax Act restricts the disclosure of such information, the OIC concluded the CRA properly withheld the records.

Key Issues
  • Whether the information requested was properly withheld under subsection 24(1) of the ATIA (disclosure restricted by another law).
  • Whether the information constituted taxpayer information as defined by the Income Tax Act.
  • Whether section 241 of the Income Tax Act restricted the disclosure of the requested information.
Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActNot well-founded
Jan 21, 20212021 OIC 2· Indexed Apr 21, 2026

Health Canada (Re), 2021 OIC 2

Health Canada

The complainant alleged that Health Canada did not conduct a reasonable search for records concerning producers and users of medical cannabis. Responsive records were drawn from one database, but Health Canada argued retrieving additional records from a second database would be unreasonable due to the manual labour involved. The Information Commissioner agreed that the search was reasonable given the effort required.

Quick View

Access to Information ActNot well-founded

Health Canada (Re), 2021 OIC 2

Jan 21, 20212021 OIC 2
Adjudicator: Caroline Maynard
Plain-Language Summary

The complainant alleged that Health Canada did not conduct a reasonable search for records concerning producers and users of medical cannabis. Responsive records were drawn from one database, but Health Canada argued retrieving additional records from a second database would be unreasonable due to the manual labour involved. The Information Commissioner agreed that the search was reasonable given the effort required.

Key Issues
  • Reasonableness of search
Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActNot well-founded
Jan 7, 20212021 OIC 1· Indexed Apr 21, 2026

Transport Canada (Re), 2021 OIC 1

Transport Canada

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada improperly relied on section 26 of the Access to Information Act to refuse access to annual statistics regarding the processing of access to information and privacy requests. The Office of the Information Commissioner found that Transport Canada met the criteria for applying section 26 and had properly considered all relevant factors in its decision.

Quick View

Access to Information ActNot well-founded

Transport Canada (Re), 2021 OIC 1

Jan 7, 20212021 OIC 1
Adjudicator: Caroline Maynard
Plain-Language Summary

The complainant alleged that Transport Canada improperly relied on section 26 of the Access to Information Act to refuse access to annual statistics regarding the processing of access to information and privacy requests. The Office of the Information Commissioner found that Transport Canada met the criteria for applying section 26 and had properly considered all relevant factors in its decision.

Key Issues
  • Applicability of section 26 of the ATIA (Refusal of access if information to be published)
  • Proper exercise of discretion by the institution