Federal Court Rejects Privacy Complaint Under PIPEDA

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Date: 20260525 Docket: T-2668-25 Citation: 2026 FC 666 Toronto, Ontario, May 25, 2026 PRESENT: Madam Justice Whyte Nowak BETWEEN: [APPELLANT] Applicant and [RESPONDENT] Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] The Applicant, [APPELLANT], brings this application pursuant to section 14 of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act , SC 2000, c 5 [PIPEDA], in connection with an Investigation Report of an investigator of the [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [[NAME]] dated June 17, 2025 [Report]. The Report found the Applicant’s complaint to be well-founded as the Respondent, [RESPONDENT] [COMPANY]. [Respondent], failed to respond to an investigation into the Applicant’s complaint under PIPEDA. [ 2 ] Based on a de novo review of the Respondent’s conduct and the evidence before the Court, I am not satisfied [RESPONDENT] the Applicant has met his burden of showing a violation of [RESPONDENT] falls within the scope of subsection 14(1).

Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

II. Facts A. The Applicant’s privacy complaint [ 3 ] In an affidavit sworn August 14, 2025 [Affidavit], the Applicant states [RESPONDENT] on May 3, 2024, the Respondent blocked his access to his private corporate email account and transferred access to a third party without his knowledge or consent. According to the Affidavit, the email account included approximately 8,000 emails between the Applicant and his family, friends, accountants, [NAME], [NAME] and the Canada Revenue Agency spanning approximately a 14-year period. The Applicant complained to the Respondent by email dated May 3, 2024 [Email], however, he says [RESPONDENT] the Respondent “took no meaningful steps to correct the situation.” [ 4 ] The Report states [RESPONDENT] the Applicant filed a complaint with the [NAME] on May 4, 2024 [Complaint]. [ 5 ] According to the Applicant, on the instructions of the [NAME], he sent the Respondent a registered letter dated October 18, 2024 [Registered Letter], requesting [RESPONDENT] the Respondent return his personal emails and take steps to ensure [RESPONDENT] the emails are not available to the third party to whom they were transferred, or any other party. According to the Applicant, he did not receive a response. B. The Decision [ 6 ] The relevant excerpts of the Report state: Enclosed you will find our report on the investigation of your complaint against [RESPONDENT] [COMPANY]. ([RESPONDENT]) in which you alleged [RESPONDENT] the [NAME] failed to satisfy the legislative requirements for responding to your Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) request. Subsection 8(3) of the Act provides [RESPONDENT] an [NAME] must provide a response to a request for access to personal information with due diligence, and in any case no later than 30 days after the request is received… Subsection 8(5) of the Act states [RESPONDENT] if an [NAME] fails to provide access to the requested information within the prescribed time limits, it is deemed to have refused access. Following the investigation into the complaint, we have concluded [RESPONDENT] the matter is well-founded. As the [NAME] has failed to satisfy one of the subsections mentioned above (ss. 8(3)), as well as clause 4.9.4 under Principle 4.9 of PIPEDA’s Schedule I, in responding to an access request, we consider the matter to be a deemed refusal and have closed the file [original emphasis].

III. Preliminary Issues A. The Respondent’s motion to strike [ 7 ] On December 17, 2025, the Respondent attempted to file a motion to strike the Applicant’s application on the basis [RESPONDENT] it was improperly filed as a judicial review of the Report. The Registry Officer referred the documents back to the Respondent due to missing information related to whether the motion should be dealt with in writing or in person. As this is a minor irregularity, I am exercising my discretion under Rule 55 of the Federal Courts Rules , SOR/98-106 [ Federal Courts Rules ], to allow the motion and the Applicant’s response to be filed nunc pro tunc to allow the motion to be dealt with on its merits. [ 8 ] The Respondent is correct [RESPONDENT] an application under subsection 14(1) of PIPEDA is not a judicial review of the Report, rather it is a de novo review which considers the conduct of the party against whom a complaint is filed ( [NAME] v [COMPANY] , 2018 FC 1155 at para 20). The Applicant used a Federal Court form for a notice of application for judicial review, rather than Form 301. Despite reference to the application as a “judicial review,” the Applicant’s notice of application makes clear [RESPONDENT] the application is brought pursuant to section 14 of PIPEDA and he has properly framed the application as a review of the Respondent’s conduct and not the Report. The irregularity identified by the Respondent therefore falls squarely within Rule 57 of the Federal Courts Rules , which provides [RESPONDENT] “[a]n originating document shall not be set aside only on the ground [RESPONDENT] a different originating document should have been used.” The Respondent’s motion is therefore dismissed. B. The Respondent’s late filing of responding materials [ 9 ] Despite having been served with the Applicant’s affidavit evidence on August 15, 2025, it was not until May 1, 2026, [RESPONDENT] the Respondent sought to file a responding record containing an affidavit from its Chief Financial Officer [the CFO Affidavit]. The Respondent was advised by the [RESPONDENT] it was late and leave of the Court would be required in order to accept it for filing. [ADDRESS] issued a Direction on May 4, 2026, advising the parties [RESPONDENT] they could speak to all filing issues at the start of the hearing. [ 10 ] On May 5, 2026, the Respondent again attempted to file a responding record containing the CFO Affidavit, a memorandum of fact and law as well as an additional affidavit from a law clerk. Again, the Registry refused the Applicant’s materials for filing. [ 11 ] Since being advised by the [RESPONDENT] the Respondent required leave to file its responding motion record, the Respondent failed to take steps to address its non-compliance with the Federal Courts Rules including by bringing a motion for an extension of time to file its responding materials. At the hearing of the application, counsel for the Respondent suggested [RESPONDENT] the communications from the Court caused him to think [RESPONDENT] no further steps were required to obtain the Court’s leave. [ 12 ] The bottom line is [RESPONDENT] the Applicant does not consent to the filing of the Respondent’s affidavits and without a motion from the Respondent supported by affidavit evidence, I am not in a position to weigh the reasons for the Respondent’s delay (which spans over 7 months) against the intrinsic worth of the Respondent’s affidavits as the Court is required to do ( [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Public Service Commission) , 2003 FCT 4 at para 5, aff’d 2003 FCT 530, aff’d 2006 FCA 21). I am therefore refusing the filing of the Respondent’s affidavits based on sensible judicial authority [RESPONDENT] fairly holds [RESPONDENT] there is only one set of Federal Courts Rules to which all parties will be held ( [NAME] v Canada ([NAME]) , 2004 FCA 418 at para 8).

IV. Issues [ 13 ] The following issues are raised in this application: Has the Applicant shown a violation of PIPEDA? If so, has the Applicant shown his entitlement to any remedies? V. Analysis A. The Applicant has not shown the Respondent’s violation of PIPEDA (1) The scope of the alleged breach [ 14 ] The Applicant bears the burden of showing a violation of [RESPONDENT] falls within the scope of subsection 14(1) of PIPEDA. There are two limitations to the scope of the Court’s fact-finding inquiry into the Respondent’s conduct under this provision. [ 15 ] First, the Court is not limited to the matters referred to in the Report: subsection 14(1) permits an application to be brought in respect of “any matter in respect of which the complaint was made, or [RESPONDENT] is referred to in the Commissioner’s report.” [ 16 ] Second, the alleged breach must be in relation to one or more of the clauses which are not only referred to in Schedule 1 of PIPEDA [Schedule 1] but also listed in subsection 14(1). The principles in Schedule 1 are considered obligations with which those in the private sector should comply (PIPEDA, ss 5(1) and (2); [NAME] v [COMPANY] , 2018 FC 525 at para 19 [ [APPELLANT] ]). [ 17 ] The Applicant’s evidence did not include a copy of the Complaint, and the Report refers only to an allegation [RESPONDENT] the Respondent “failed to satisfy the legislative requirements for responding” to his Complaint. The Report does not refer to the Applicant’s broader underlying concern over access to the Applicant’s personal information. [ 18 ] Accordingly, the Court is restricted to considering the Respondent’s failure to respond to the [NAME] which relates to subsection 8(3) of PIPEDA and clause 4.9.4 of Schedule 1, the latter of which provides [RESPONDENT] an [NAME] shall respond to an individual’s request for access within a reasonable time and the requested information shall be provided or made available. B. Insufficient evidence of the alleged breach [ 19 ] The Applicant was required to show on a balance of probabilities [RESPONDENT] the Respondent failed to respond to his request related to access to his personal information. [ 20 ] The Applicant’s evidence is sparse and does not provide much in the way of background or an explanation of the circumstances leading to the Complaint. He has provided the Email and the Registered Letter he sent advising the Respondent of his privacy concerns related to a transfer of his corporate email account containing personal and privileged information. However, his Affidavit includes the statement [RESPONDENT] the Respondent “took no meaningful steps” to address his concerns, a statement which suggests [RESPONDENT] he may well have received a response from the Respondent to his Email but was unsatisfied with it. This critical gap in the evidence significantly impacts the Court’s ability to assess the Respondent’s conduct ( [NAME] v [RESPONDENT] , 2025 FC 1679 at paras 63, 99 [ [NAME] ]). [ 21 ] It was the Applicant’s burden to make out his Complaint and show a breach of a principle of PIPEDA ( [NAME] at para 67), based on evidence [RESPONDENT] is “clear, convincing and cogent” ( [RESPONDENT] v [NAME].[COMPANY] , 2023 FC 166 at para 4 aff’d [RESPONDENT] v [NAME].[RESPONDENT], 2023 FCA 189). I find [RESPONDENT] he has failed to do so. As the Court noted in [RESPONDENT] , a Court may provide “allowances” to a self-represented litigant, however this does not include excusing a party’s failure to put forward their case ( [APPELLANT] at para 30). [ 22 ] As the Applicant has not shown the Respondent’s violation of PIPEDA, there is no need to consider his request for remedies. [ 23 ] No costs shall be awarded either on the Respondent’s motion to strike, or the application.

VI. Conclusion [ 24 ] The Applicant has not established [RESPONDENT] the Respondent’s conduct has breached a principle of PIPEDA;

accordingly, this application is dismissed.

JUDGMENT in T-2668-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is [RESPONDENT]: The application is dismissed; and There is no order as to costs. "Allyson Whyte Nowak" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-2668-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [APPELLANT] v [RESPONDENT] [COMPANY]. PLACE OF HEARING: [APPELLANT], ONTARIO DATE OF HEARING: MAY 14, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: WHYTE NOWAK J. DATED: MAY 25, 2026 APPEARANCES : [APPELLANT] FOR THE APPLICANT (ON HIS [APPELLANT]) [NAME]. [NAME] FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [COMPANY] and Solicitors Toronto, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT