Category: Privacy Page 1 of 13

Case/Decision/Legislation/Bill Commented On: Protecting Victims of Non-consensual Distribution of Intimate Images Act, SA 2017, c P-26.9

PDF Version: Intimate Image Abuse in the Age of Deepfakes: Reforming Alberta’s Civil Legislation: Part 2

The Canadian Centre for Child Protection reported that non-consensual distribution of intimate images (NCDII) involving Canadian youth increased by approximately 21% between 2024 and 2025, from 436 to 527. Despite the growing prevalence of intimate image abuse, Alberta does not provide a dedicated process for obtaining an expedited intimate image protection order or expressly authorize orders requiring online platforms to remove intimate images. Victims seeking protective relief must instead navigate ordinary civil proceedings or pursue voluntary removal through online platforms.

Intimate Image Abuse in the Age of Deepfakes: Reforming Alberta’s Civil Legislation: Part 1

By Emma Marck

On August 25, 2026

In Internet Law, Law Reform, Privacy

By: Emma Marck

Legislation Commented On: Protecting Victims of Non-consensual Distribution of Intimate Images Act, SA 2017, c P-26.9

PDF Version: Intimate Image Abuse in the Age of Deepfakes: Reforming Alberta’s Civil Legislation: Part 1

One in ten American teenagers personally knows someone who has had deepfake non-consensual intimate images (DNCII) of them created, and 6% reported having been victimized by DNCII (Thorn, Deepfake Nudes & Young People: Navigating a New Frontier in Technology-Facilitated Nonconsensual Sexual Abuse and Exploitation (Thorn: 2025) at 14). Recent incidents in Alberta demonstrate why intimate image legislation must address DNCII and its online distribution. In December 2025, a Calgary teen was charged in relation to DNCII of students from several schools. Six months later, two Edmonton boys were charged after creating and sharing DNCII of classmates. Reported consequences include job loss, school expulsion, post-traumatic stress disorder, and, in some cases, death by suicide (Mary Anne Franks, “‘Revenge Porn’ Reform: A View from the Front Lines” (2017) 69:5 Florida L Rev 1251 at 1259, 1263).

Decrypting Bill C-22, Part I: Why Canada Needs a Lawful Access Regime

By Alexandra Lyn

On July 14, 2026

In National Security, Privacy

By: Alexandra Lyn, Joel Reardon, and Michael Nesbitt

Legislation Commented On: Bill C-22, An Act respecting lawful access (1^st Sess, 45^th Parl, 2026)

PDF Version: Decrypting Bill C-22, Part I: Why Canada Needs a Lawful Access Regime

Bill C-22, An Act respecting lawful access (1^st Sess, 45^th Parl, 2026) is the federal government’s long-overdue and contentious attempt to address the intractable issue of lawful access. C-22 has cleared the House and is awaiting Senate study beginning on September 21, 2026, having been fast-tracked through third reading despite ongoing privacy, encryption, and overbreadth objections. The Bill has two parts. Part 1, Timely Access to Data and Information, governs law enforcement access to personal information held by communication service providers (think Bell, Rogers, Telus) and other tech companies and services like Signal, Gmail, and WhatsApp, by amending the Criminal Code and several related statutes. Part 2 enacts the Supporting Authorized Access to Information Act (SAAIA), which establishes a framework that requires electronic service providers to facilitate lawful access requests under the Criminal Code or the CSIS Act. Framed by the government as a response to criminal activity increasingly enabled by the digital environment, the Bill expands the state’s powers of search and seizure by conscripting private providers into its investigative apparatus — for example by requiring them, among other things, to retain user metadata that may not otherwise be preserved, and to develop technical capabilities that would otherwise not exist, so that law enforcement can access the data these providers hold. These expanded powers lie in tension with civil liberties and the privacy interests Canadians hold in their digital lives, interests protected by section 8 of the Charter. Bill C-22 asks Canadians to decide a question that has become increasingly pressing in a digital world: in the pursuit of public safety, how much of our privacy are we prepared to relinquish, to whom, and at what cost?

The Queue-Jumping Problem with Mandamus: Northback v the Minister of Environment and Protected Areas

By Drew Yewchuk

On November 18, 2025

In Access to Information, Administrative Law, Privacy

By: Drew Yewchuk

Case Commented On: Northback Holdings Corporation v Alberta (Environment and Protected Areas), 2025 ABKB 617 (CanLII)

PDF Version: The Queue-Jumping Problem with Mandamus:Northback v the Minister of Environment and Protected Areas

In Northback Holdings Corporation v Alberta (Environment and Protected Areas), 2025 ABKB 617 (CanLII), Northback Holdings Corporation (Northback), (formerly known as Benga Mining Limited) sought a mandamus order from the Alberta Court of King’s Bench that would require the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) to complete their review of the Minister of Environment and Protected Areas’ response to access requests made under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, SA 2000 c F-25 (FOIP). The Court of King’s Bench dismissed the application, finding that three years was not unreasonable delay in light of the OIPC’s lack of resources and workload, and that an order would have caused inequitable queue jumping.

Securing the Infrastructure, Straining the Constitution? Bill C-8’s Cybersecurity Overhaul

By Dav More

On September 5, 2025

In Administrative Law, Constitutional, Privacy

By: Dav More and Tulika Bali

Matter Commented On: Bill C-8 , An Act respecting cyber security (1st Sess, 45th Parl, 2025)

PDF Version: Securing the Infrastructure, Straining the Constitution? Bill C-8’s Cybersecurity Overhaul

Cyberattacks targeting vital infrastructure have intensified globally. Recent high-profile incidents in the United States and Europe prompted national governments to tighten regulation (see Industrial Cyber, The National Law Review, CER, and AP News). The EU’s NIS2 Directive mandates stricter cybersecurity standards across member states by 2024. In Canada, the federal government introduced Bill C-26 in June 2022, aiming to overhaul cybersecurity regulation, but that bill died when Parliament was prorogued in early 2025 (Miller Thomson at para 2-3).