Correctional Service of Canada Deleted Video

Complaint under the Privacy Act (the “Act”)

March 3, 2026

---

Description

An inmate at a Pacific Region correctional institution managed by Correctional Service Canada (CSC) requested access under the Act to video footage of incidents of use of force against them. In response, CSC did not provide the complainant with copies of all of the footage they expected, and the complainant therefore alleged that the footage had been inappropriately disposed of. Upon investigation, we found that CSC disposed of footage that it was obligated to retain under the Act. In response to our recommendations, CSC agreed to implement additional oversight measures, including random audits of footage of use of force incidents at sites throughout its Pacific Region.

Takeaways

• Under Subsection 6(1) of the Act, institutions are obligated to retain personal information used for an administrative purpose, as detailed in Section 4 of the Privacy Regulations.
• It is recommended that organizations have oversight measures in place, in addition to requirements set out in policies, to ensure compliance.

Case Summary

An inmate in a correctional institution managed by Correctional Service Canada (CSC) in its Pacific Region, alleged that CSC failed to retain video footage that captured use of force incidents involving them. The complainant made this allegation after they requested access to the footage under the Act but did not receive all of the footage that they believed existed.

Subsection 6(1) of the Act states that personal information used for an administrative purpose shall be retained by the institution for a period of time as prescribed by regulation, to ensure that the individual to whom it relates has a reasonable opportunity to obtain access to the information. Paragraph 4(1)(a) of the Regulations sets out that period as at least two years.

CSC submitted that according to its Commissioner’s Directives, footage relevant to a use of force incident must be identified as relevant and then retained for a minimum of two years, which is in alignment with the Regulations. Otherwise, it is retained only for a period of six days before automatic deletion.

The OPC asked CSC for its position as to whether in this case its actions were in compliance with section 6 of the Act. In response, the institution stated that it did not believe it had disposed of any footage relevant to the use of force incidents. However, upon reviewing CSC’s own reports on the incidents, we found evidence that confirmed that in at least one use of force incident involving the complainant, no footage had been saved for longer term retention prior to being automatically deleted.

As such, we found that CSC contravened the retention provisions of the Act. Due to CSC’s failure to retain this footage, the complainant was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to access it. We consider this to be a serious failure given the sensitive nature of the recordings.

We recommended that CSC take steps to ensure that all footage related to use of force incidents as defined in its policies is retained for a minimum two-year period as prescribed by the Act and Regulations. To address the recommendation, CSC agreed to the following:

1. The correctional institution that is the subject of this complaint will attest on a monthly basis that it has retained all footage for each use of force incidents at the institution.
2. Over the course of fiscal year 2026/27, CSC will undertake quarterly random audits of use of force footage at sites across its Pacific Region to assess compliance with legislation and policy as it relates to video retention requirements. It will report the findings of these audits to the OPC, including a brief description of any potential compliance issues related to document collection and retention, and the steps taken to address each instance.

It is our expectation that the quarterly audits will be sufficiently broad and in-depth to render the exercise meaningful. We expect CSC to address any compliance issues identified to ensure that similar contraventions do not occur again in the future and suggest that the attestation requirement be expanded to any institution where compliance issues are identified. In light of this, we consider the complaint well-founded and conditionally resolved.