The catalogue

Canadian privacy & access decisions

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

22,101 decisions in the archive
OntarioFreedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act
Ontario flag

Order PO-4094-F

Subscribe to open Ontario decisions.

Unlock this jurisdiction
Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActWell-founded
Federal (Canada) flag
Dec 15, 20202020 OIC 16Indexed Jun 30, 2026

Transport Canada (Re), 2020 OIC 16

Transport Canada

The complainant challenged Transport Canada's decision to withhold information concerning vehicle safety recall completion rates, citing sections 14, 20, and 21 of the Access to Information Act. The Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) requested submissions from the complainant, Transport Canada, and a third party. The Commissioner determined that neither Transport Canada nor the third party had adequately demonstrated that the claimed exemptions applied to the information in question. Consequently, the Commissioner recommended that Transport Canada disclose all previously withheld information, excluding any personal information. Transport Canada confirmed its intention to implement these recommendations. The complaint was found to be well founded.

Quick view

Access to Information ActWell-founded

Transport Canada (Re), 2020 OIC 16

Dec 15, 20202020 OIC 16
Adjudicator: Caroline Maynard
Plain-Language Summary

The complainant challenged Transport Canada's decision to withhold information concerning vehicle safety recall completion rates, citing sections 14, 20, and 21 of the Access to Information Act. The Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) requested submissions from the complainant, Transport Canada, and a third party. The Commissioner determined that neither Transport Canada nor the third party had adequately demonstrated that the claimed exemptions applied to the information in question. Consequently, the Commissioner recommended that Transport Canada disclose all previously withheld information, excluding any personal information. Transport Canada confirmed its intention to implement these recommendations. The complaint was found to be well founded.

Key Issues
  • Whether s.14 ATIA (federal-provincial affairs) applied to the withheld information
  • Whether s.20 ATIA (third-party information) applied to the withheld information
  • Whether s.21 ATIA (advice and recommendations) applied to the withheld information
  • Whether Transport Canada and the third party met their burden of proof for the claimed exemptions
QuebecAct respecting the protection of personal information in the private sector
Quebec flag

2020 QCCAI 392 — Système de puissance Wajax

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

2020 QCCAI 408 — Ministère de la Sécurité publique (Sûreté du Québec)

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

2020 QCCAI 410 — Sûreté du Québec

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

2020 QCCAI 411 — Sécurité publique (Sûreté du Québec)

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

2020 QCCAI 412 — Développement durable, Environnement et Lutte contre les changements climatiques

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

2020 QCCAI 415 — Hydro-Québec

Subscribe to open Quebec decisions.

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

Décision 1014728-S — À 2 c'est mieux Inc.

Subscribe to open Quebec decisions.

Unlock this jurisdiction
Newfoundland and LabradorAccess to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 2015
Newfoundland and Labrador flag

P-2020-003 — Royal Newfoundland Constabulary

Subscribe to open Newfoundland and Labrador decisions.

Unlock this jurisdiction
SaskatchewanFreedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act
Saskatchewan flag

Review Report 158-2019 — Ministry of Justice

Subscribe to open Saskatchewan decisions.

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

Order MO-3987-I

Subscribe to open Ontario decisions.

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

Order MO-3986-F

Subscribe to open Ontario decisions.

Unlock this jurisdiction
Federal (Canada)Access to Information ActWell-founded
Federal (Canada) flag
Dec 14, 20202020 OIC 15Indexed Jun 30, 2026

VIA Rail Canada Inc. (Re), 2020 OIC 15

VIA Rail Canada Inc.

The complainant challenged VIA Rail's decision to withhold information concerning a High Frequency Rail Proposal. VIA Rail had applied multiple exemptions under the Access to Information Act. The Information Commissioner found that VIA Rail failed to demonstrate that the withheld information properly fell within the scope of the claimed exemptions. Furthermore, VIA Rail did not perform a severance exercise to release non-exempt portions of the records. The Commissioner recommended that VIA Rail conduct a severance exercise, disclose all information not meeting exemption criteria, and properly exercise discretion for any remaining exempt information. Consequently, the complaint was deemed well founded.

Quick view

Access to Information ActWell-founded

VIA Rail Canada Inc. (Re), 2020 OIC 15

Dec 14, 20202020 OIC 15
Adjudicator: Caroline Maynard
Plain-Language Summary

The complainant challenged VIA Rail's decision to withhold information concerning a High Frequency Rail Proposal. VIA Rail had applied multiple exemptions under the Access to Information Act. The Information Commissioner found that VIA Rail failed to demonstrate that the withheld information properly fell within the scope of the claimed exemptions. Furthermore, VIA Rail did not perform a severance exercise to release non-exempt portions of the records. The Commissioner recommended that VIA Rail conduct a severance exercise, disclose all information not meeting exemption criteria, and properly exercise discretion for any remaining exempt information. Consequently, the complaint was deemed well founded.

Key Issues
  • Whether the information fell within the scope of the exemptions claimed under s.18 ATIA
  • Whether the information fell within the scope of the exemptions claimed under s.21 ATIA
  • Whether VIA Rail conducted a proper severance exercise to disclose non-exempt information
Federal (Canada)Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActWell-founded & conditionally resolved
Federal (Canada) flag
Dec 14, 2020PIPEDA Findings #2020-005Indexed Jun 30, 2026

PIPEDA Findings #2020-005: Investigation into Desjardins’ compliance with PIPEDA following a breach of personal information between 2017 and 2019

Desjardins

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) investigated a major data breach at Desjardins that affected close to 9.7 million individuals in Canada and abroad between 2017 and 2019. The breach was caused by a malicious employee who exfiltrated sensitive personal information, including names, dates of birth, social insurance numbers, and transaction histories. The OPC found that Desjardins contravened PIPEDA's principles regarding accountability, retention periods, and security safeguards. Specifically, Desjardins had inadequate organizational policies and procedures, critical gaps in employee training and awareness, ineffective access controls and data segregation, and insufficient oversight and monitoring. Additionally, Desjardins failed to handle personal information in accordance with retention and destruction requirements, retaining some inactive files for decades. While the complaints were found to be well-founded, Desjardins' mitigation measures offered to affected individuals were deemed adequate. Desjardins committed to implementing the OPC's recommendations to address the identified weaknesses.

Quick view

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

PIPEDA Findings #2020-005: Investigation into Desjardins’ compliance with PIPEDA following a breach of personal information between 2017 and 2019

Dec 14, 2020PIPEDA Findings #2020-005
Adjudicator: Daniel Therrien
Plain-Language Summary

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) investigated a major data breach at Desjardins that affected close to 9.7 million individuals in Canada and abroad between 2017 and 2019. The breach was caused by a malicious employee who exfiltrated sensitive personal information, including names, dates of birth, social insurance numbers, and transaction histories. The OPC found that Desjardins contravened PIPEDA's principles regarding accountability, retention periods, and security safeguards. Specifically, Desjardins had inadequate organizational policies and procedures, critical gaps in employee training and awareness, ineffective access controls and data segregation, and insufficient oversight and monitoring. Additionally, Desjardins failed to handle personal information in accordance with retention and destruction requirements, retaining some inactive files for decades. While the complaints were found to be well-founded, Desjardins' mitigation measures offered to affected individuals were deemed adequate. Desjardins committed to implementing the OPC's recommendations to address the identified weaknesses.

Key Issues
  • Whether personal information held by Desjardins was protected throughout its life cycle by security safeguards appropriate to the sensitivity of the information as required by PIPEDA Safeguards Principle 4.7.
  • Whether Desjardins fulfilled its responsibilities to implement procedures to protect personal information and train its staff, as set out in Accountability Principle 4.1.
  • Whether the personal information of individuals was handled in accordance with the retention and destruction requirements as set out in PIPEDA Principle 4.5, limiting use, disclosure and retention.
  • Whether the mitigation measures offered by Desjardins to affected individuals were adequate to protect their personal information from unauthorized use, such as future identity theft, in accordance with PIPEDA Safeguards Principle 4.7.