The catalogue

Canadian privacy & access decisions

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

1,002 decisions matching
SaskatchewanFreedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act
Saskatchewan flag

Review Report 021-2015 — Ministry of Central Services

Subscribe to open Saskatchewan decisions.

Unlock this jurisdiction
OntarioFreedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act
Ontario flag

Order PO-3491

Subscribe to open Ontario decisions.

Unlock this jurisdiction
QuebecAct respecting the protection of personal information in the private sector
Quebec flag

2015 QCCAI 110 — Compagnie d’assurance Standard Life du Canada

Subscribe to open Quebec decisions.

Unlock this jurisdiction
QuebecAct respecting access to documents held by public bodies and the protection of personal information
Quebec flag

2015 QCCAI 114 — Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (CSST)

Subscribe to open Quebec decisions.

Unlock this jurisdiction
OntarioMunicipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act
Ontario flag

Order MO-3200

Subscribe to open Ontario decisions.

Unlock this jurisdiction
Federal (Canada)Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActWell-founded & conditionally resolved
Federal (Canada) flag
May 19, 2015Commissioner’s Findings - PIPEDA Case Summary #2014-014Indexed Jun 30, 2026

Commissioner’s Findings - PIPEDA Case Summary #2014-014 : Organization required to mask detailed personal-leave information available to other employees

An organization

The complainant alleged that his employer disclosed detailed personal information about his absence from the workplace to other employees in his work unit. The organization used an electronic scheduling program that allowed all employees to view approved leave information, including the reason for absence, for all other employees in their unit. The organization argued this was necessary to facilitate shift exchanges and meet collective agreement obligations. The OPC found that the leave information was personal information and that the disclosure was not for purposes a reasonable person would consider appropriate under subsection 5(3) of PIPEDA. The OPC determined that less privacy-intrusive means existed and that the benefits of the system were not proportional to the loss of privacy. The organization agreed to remove employee leave information viewable by co-workers from its scheduling program within 18 months.

Quick view

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

Commissioner’s Findings - PIPEDA Case Summary #2014-014 : Organization required to mask detailed personal-leave information available to other employees

May 19, 2015Commissioner’s Findings - PIPEDA Case Summary #2014-014
Adjudicator: Daniel Therrien
Plain-Language Summary

The complainant alleged that his employer disclosed detailed personal information about his absence from the workplace to other employees in his work unit. The organization used an electronic scheduling program that allowed all employees to view approved leave information, including the reason for absence, for all other employees in their unit. The organization argued this was necessary to facilitate shift exchanges and meet collective agreement obligations. The OPC found that the leave information was personal information and that the disclosure was not for purposes a reasonable person would consider appropriate under subsection 5(3) of PIPEDA. The OPC determined that less privacy-intrusive means existed and that the benefits of the system were not proportional to the loss of privacy. The organization agreed to remove employee leave information viewable by co-workers from its scheduling program within 18 months.

Key Issues
  • Whether the disclosed leave information constituted personal information under PIPEDA
  • Whether the organization's purposes for disclosing employee leave information to other employees were appropriate in the circumstances under subsection 5(3) of PIPEDA
  • Whether the disclosure of leave type was necessary for the organization to meet its employee schedule management needs
  • Whether the benefits of the leave exchange system were proportional to the loss of privacy experienced by employees
QuebecAct respecting access to documents held by public bodies and the protection of personal information
Quebec flag

2015 QCCAI 109 — Centre de santé et de services sociaux Cavendish

Subscribe to open Quebec decisions.

Unlock this jurisdiction
AlbertaPersonal Information Protection Act
Alberta flag

P2015-05 — FAIRMONT HOTELS AND RESORTS INC.

Subscribe to open Alberta decisions.

Unlock this jurisdiction
AlbertaPersonal Information Protection Act
Alberta flag

P2015-06 — Syncrude Canada Ltd.

Subscribe to open Alberta decisions.

Unlock this jurisdiction
OntarioMunicipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act
Ontario flag

Order MO-3199

Subscribe to open Ontario decisions.

Unlock this jurisdiction
OntarioMunicipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act
Ontario flag

Order MO-3198

Subscribe to open Ontario decisions.

Unlock this jurisdiction
QuebecAct respecting access to documents held by public bodies and the protection of personal information
Quebec flag

2015 QCCAI 108 — Ville de Montréal (SPVM)

Subscribe to open Quebec decisions.

Unlock this jurisdiction
QuebecAct respecting access to documents held by public bodies and the protection of personal information
Quebec flag

2015 QCCAI 113 — Ville de Waterloo

Subscribe to open Quebec decisions.

Unlock this jurisdiction
Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActResolved
Federal (Canada) flag
May 14, 2015Indexed Jun 30, 2026

Investigation into an access to information request for the Long-gun Registry

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

The complainant requested access to the Firearms Registry database from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) on March 27, 2012, prior to the enactment of the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act. The complainant alleged that the RCMP provided an incomplete response, failed to justify the incompleteness, and obstructed the right of access by destroying responsive records. The investigation focused on whether the RCMP's actions, particularly the destruction of records, constituted an obstruction of the right of access under section 67.1 of the Access to Information Act. The Commissioner examined the circumstances surrounding the destruction of the Long-gun Registry data. The Commissioner found that the destruction of the records was carried out in accordance with a valid legislative process and did not constitute an obstruction of the right of access.

Quick view

Access to Information ActResolved

Investigation into an access to information request for the Long-gun Registry

May 14, 2015
Adjudicator: Suzanne Legault
Plain-Language Summary

The complainant requested access to the Firearms Registry database from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) on March 27, 2012, prior to the enactment of the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act. The complainant alleged that the RCMP provided an incomplete response, failed to justify the incompleteness, and obstructed the right of access by destroying responsive records. The investigation focused on whether the RCMP's actions, particularly the destruction of records, constituted an obstruction of the right of access under section 67.1 of the Access to Information Act. The Commissioner examined the circumstances surrounding the destruction of the Long-gun Registry data. The Commissioner found that the destruction of the records was carried out in accordance with a valid legislative process and did not constitute an obstruction of the right of access.

Key Issues
  • Whether the information provided was incomplete
  • Whether the RCMP justified the incomplete response
  • Whether the destruction of responsive records by the RCMP obstructed the right of access under section 67.1 of the Act
OntarioFreedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act
Ontario flag

Order PO-3490-F

Subscribe to open Ontario decisions.

Unlock this jurisdiction