Category: Privacy Page 1 of 13

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

On November 18, 2025

In Access to Information, Administrative Law, Privacy

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).

Bill C-2 and the Return of Warrantless Access: Same Fight, New Wrapper

By Dav More

On September 4, 2025

In National Security, Privacy

By: Dav More & Tulika Bali

Matter Commented On: Bill C-2, An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of the border between Canada and the United States and respecting other related security measures (1st Sess, 45th Parl, 2025)

PDF Version: Bill C-2 and the Return of Warrantless Access: Same Fight, New Wrapper

Bill C?2, the federal government’s so-called “Strong Borders Act,” introduced in June 2025, proposes sweeping changes across border enforcement, immigration, and criminal law. Also tucked deep in the Bill are expansive new powers for law enforcement to access subscriber data, often without a warrant. These lawful access provisions, which have been controversial in the past, are now being quietly reintroduced through omnibus national security legislation. The constitutional concerns are immediate and serious, especially under section 8 of the Charter. Critics argue that the Bill undermines more than a decade of privacy jurisprudence and reopens doors that R v Spencer, 2014 SCC 43 (CanLII) had firmly closed (see here).

How Canada’s Federal and Provincial Governments Collaborate Against the Public Right to Access Environmental Information

By Drew Yewchuk

On July 10, 2025

In Access to Information, Environmental, Privacy

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: How Canada’s Federal and Provincial Governments Collaborate Against the Public Right to Access Environmental Information

Secrecy enables government messaging control and defeats democratic accountability. The right to information is foundational to democratic participation in the conduct of public affairs. When journalists and academics cannot access information on an issue, that information is not conveyed to the public, and the public cannot meaningfully participate or assess government decision-making on the issue. This situation is common with environmental damage – the government permits and enables environmental damage but misleads the public into believing that the environment is being protected. This is the worst outcome for the protection of a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, but the ideal outcome for a governing party, who takes credit for the economic benefits of the environmentally damaging project and avoids any criticism by keeping the public unaware of the environmental damage.

The Information Commissioner’s Report on the Government of Alberta’s War on the Public’s Right to Access Information

By Drew Yewchuk

On May 30, 2025

In Access to Information, Privacy

By: Drew Yewchuk

Matter Commented On: OIPC Investigation Report F2025-IR-01, Investigation into the Government of Alberta’s practices respecting access to information

PDF Version: The Information Commissioner’s Report on the Government of Alberta’s War on the Public’s Right to Access Information

On 8 May 2025, Alberta’s Information Commissioner (Commissioner) posted Investigation Report 2025-01 (Report 2025-01). Report 2025-01 is unlike typical Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) orders that make decisions about particular records requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, RSA 2000, c F-25 (FOIP). Instead, Report 2025-01 relates to how the 27 government departments that make up the Government of Alberta were handling records requests in general. Report 2025-01 concludes that the Alberta government had been applying incorrect interpretations of three sections of FOIP to improperly reject records requests (at 3).