The catalogue

Canadian privacy & access decisions

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

1,580 decisions matching
OntarioMunicipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act
Ontario flag

Order MO-4370

Subscribe to open Ontario decisions.

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

Order MO-4369

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

2023 QCCAI 135 — Société québécoise des infrastructures

Subscribe to open Quebec decisions.

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

FI-22-498 — Health PEI

Subscribe to open Prince Edward Island decisions.

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

F23-31 — BC OIPC order 2629

Subscribe to open British Columbia decisions.

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

Order PO-4380-F

Subscribe to open Ontario decisions.

Unlock this jurisdiction
Federal (Canada)Privacy ActWell-founded
Federal (Canada) flag
Apr 24, 2023Indexed Jun 30, 2026

CBSA’s use of commercial genetic genealogy in a deportation case contravenes the Privacy Act

Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA)

A former refugee complained that the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) contravened his privacy rights by using commercial genetic genealogy (FamilyTreeDNA) to determine his nationality for deportation. He alleged lack of legal authority, unnecessary collection, invalid consent, deceptive practices, inadequate disclosure limitation, and insufficient Personal Information Bank (PIB) description. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC) found that while the collection was directly related to CBSA's program, the agency contravened section 5 of the Privacy Act by failing to obtain valid, informed authorization for indirect collection from FTDNA. CBSA also contravened section 8 by making incidental disclosures of the complainant's personal information to other FTDNA users, failing to monitor account settings, and not using a pseudonym. Furthermore, the CBSA's PIB descriptions were non-compliant with section 11, as they did not adequately describe the collection of genetic profiles of other FTDNA users. The OPC made several recommendations, which CBSA committed to implement for most parts, but two accounts remained open at the time of the report, leading to an ongoing, unresolved contravention. Consequently, the complaint was found well-founded in part and conditionally resolved in part.

Quick view

Privacy ActWell-founded

CBSA’s use of commercial genetic genealogy in a deportation case contravenes the Privacy Act

Apr 24, 2023
Adjudicator: Philippe Dufresne
Plain-Language Summary

A former refugee complained that the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) contravened his privacy rights by using commercial genetic genealogy (FamilyTreeDNA) to determine his nationality for deportation. He alleged lack of legal authority, unnecessary collection, invalid consent, deceptive practices, inadequate disclosure limitation, and insufficient Personal Information Bank (PIB) description. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC) found that while the collection was directly related to CBSA's program, the agency contravened section 5 of the Privacy Act by failing to obtain valid, informed authorization for indirect collection from FTDNA. CBSA also contravened section 8 by making incidental disclosures of the complainant's personal information to other FTDNA users, failing to monitor account settings, and not using a pseudonym. Furthermore, the CBSA's PIB descriptions were non-compliant with section 11, as they did not adequately describe the collection of genetic profiles of other FTDNA users. The OPC made several recommendations, which CBSA committed to implement for most parts, but two accounts remained open at the time of the report, leading to an ongoing, unresolved contravention. Consequently, the complaint was found well-founded in part and conditionally resolved in part.

Key Issues
  • Whether CBSA's collection of genetic genealogy information was directly related to an operating program or activity under s.4 of the Privacy Act
  • Whether CBSA collected unnecessary information under s.4 of the Privacy Act
  • Whether CBSA obtained valid authorization from the complainant for the indirect collection of his personal information from FTDNA under s.5(1) of the Privacy Act
  • Whether the complainant's consent for indirect collection was voluntary and not given under duress
  • Whether the complainant was adequately informed about FTDNA's terms and his rights as a DNA donor for valid authorization
  • Whether CBSA acted deceptively in its collection via FTDNA
  • Whether the incidental indirect collection of genetic profile information of hundreds of other individuals contravened s.5(1) of the Privacy Act
  • Whether CBSA's incidental disclosures of the complainant's personal information contravened s.8 of the Privacy Act
  • Whether allowing potential disclosure of the complainant's personal information to other law enforcement bodies (via "law enforcement matching" opt-in) contravened s.8 of the Privacy Act
  • Whether the disclosure of ancillary personal information (ethnicity) to genetic matches contravened s.8 of the Privacy Act
  • Whether the disclosure of the complainant's identity to genetic matches (failure to use a pseudonym) contravened s.8 of the Privacy Act
  • Whether CBSA's Personal Information Bank (PIB) descriptions complied with the transparency obligations under s.11 of the Privacy Act
  • Whether the PIB adequately described the collection of biometric information for individuals subject to removal orders
  • Whether the PIB adequately described the collection of genetic profiles of other FTDNA users (relatives of individuals subject to removal orders)
QuebecAct respecting access to documents held by public bodies and the protection of personal information
Quebec flag

2023 QCCAI 138 — Ville de Mercier

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

2023 QCCAI 164 — Ville de Montréal (Service de police)

Subscribe to open Quebec decisions.

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

Order MO-4366

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

2023 QCCAI 143 — Ministère de l'Environnement, de la Lutte contre les Changements climatiques, de la Faune et des Parcs and Société de gestion de la Rivière Cap-Chat inc.

Subscribe to open Quebec decisions.

Unlock this jurisdiction
British ColumbiaPersonal Information Protection Act
British Columbia flag

Canadian Tire Associate Dealers’ use of facial recognition technology

Subscribe to open British Columbia decisions.

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

F2023-IR-01 — City of Edmonton

Subscribe to open Alberta decisions.

Unlock this jurisdiction
British ColumbiaPersonal Information Protection Act
British Columbia flag

BC OIPC order 2618

Subscribe to open British Columbia decisions.

Unlock this jurisdiction
SaskatchewanHealth Information Protection Act
Saskatchewan flag

Review Report 175-2022 — eHealth Saskatchewan

Subscribe to open Saskatchewan decisions.

Unlock this jurisdiction