Category: Privacy Page 2 of 13

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).

The Online Harms Bill – Part 2 – Private Messaging

By Sanjampreet Singh

On June 14, 2024

In Internet Law, Privacy

By: Sanjampreet Singh and Emily Laidlaw

Matter Commented On: Online Harms Bill C-63

PDF Version: The Online Harms Bill – Part 2 – Private Messaging

This is the second in a series of posts about the Online Harms Bill C-63, proposed federal legislation the stated aims of which are to reduce harmful content online, hold social media platforms accountable, promote safety and child protection, empower users and victims, and increase transparency.

This post examines the social media services that would be regulated by the proposed Online Harms Act (Act) and potentially investigated by the Digital Safety Commission. More specifically, this post focuses on what is excluded from this Bill – private messaging – a “wicked problem” in online harms where one is damned if you do or damned if you don’t include it. We propose a middle path.

Albertan Waits: One Thousand and Three Hundred Delays

By Drew Yewchuk

On April 24, 2024

In Access to Information, Privacy

By: Drew Yewchuk

Case Commented on: Alberta Energy v Alberta (IPC), 2024 ABKB 198 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Albertan Waits: One Thousand and Three Hundred Delays

Alberta Energy v Alberta (IPC), 2024 ABKB 198 (CanLII) is another decision relating to attempts to use the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, RSA 2000, c F-25 (FOIP) to obtain records from Alberta Energy about their May 2020 decision to rescind the Coal Development Policy for Alberta (1976). Nigel Bankes described the initial rescission of the policy here and the reinstatement in February 2021 here.

The circumstances in Alberta Energy v Alberta (IPC) are an outrageous example of how Alberta’s elected officials exploit weaknesses in FOIP to conceal how government decision-making works to keep Albertans misinformed or disinformed.