Background
Roman Belousov, a self-represented litigant, sought judicial review under section 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act of decisions by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) concerning two complaints against Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) under the Privacy Act. The first complaint alleged that ESDC denied him access to his personal information. The second alleged that ESDC’s subsequent loss of the records constituted wrongful use or disclosure that should have been reported to the OPC.
The dispute arose from records connected to a 2018 complaint about an incident at a Montreal passport office. After Belousov made an access request in April 2022, ESDC explained that the physical records had been recalled from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, placed in a box for return to archiving, and later located in a closed Gatineau office. ESDC sent them toward Justice Canada in Montreal through internal mail, but they were lost after receipt at ESDC’s Montreal distribution centre. Electronic duplicates had been destroyed under retention and disposal schedules. ESDC notified Belousov in May 2023 that his personal information had been lost in August 2022.
Following discovery disclosures in separate litigation, Belousov filed the second complaint in October 2025. He commenced this application on January 8, 2026, challenging the OPC’s December 2025 refusal to investigate further. On February 25, 2026, after the application began, the OPC issued a Report of Findings concluding both complaints were not well founded. It found no evidence that ESDC still possessed or could access the records, or that the records left the distribution centre so as to establish inappropriate disclosure or a reportable privacy breach. The Report nevertheless criticized deficiencies in monitoring, documentation, and reporting delay.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Furlanetto dismissed the application. The Court first held that the relief sought in the Notice of Application was moot because the OPC’s subsequent investigation and Report left no outstanding issue or live controversy concerning an initial refusal to investigate. Addressing that alleged refusal would serve no useful purpose.
The Court also held that any challenge to the Report was not properly before it. Belousov had neither commenced a new application nor amended his Notice of Application after the Report issued. Although Rule 301 permits some discretion in appropriate circumstances, the Court agreed with the respondent that the proposed Report challenge exceeded the application as filed. The Court expressly recognized Belousov’s self-represented status but did not expand the proceeding.
Alternatively, the Court held that Belousov had not established that the Report was unreasonable or that the investigation was procedurally unfair. The OPC has broad discretion over investigative methods and timelines. Its inquiries of ESDC and Belousov, followed by a formal Report, did not become unfair merely because he preferred additional investigative steps. Applying Vavilov reasonableness review, the Court found no sufficiently serious shortcomings. Decision-makers are presumed to consider the evidence before them, and the correspondence Belousov identified did not undermine the Report’s conclusions.
The Court rejected the argument that the OPC’s concerns about ESDC’s handling of the loss contradicted its findings. It also held that an alleged statement about delivery to someone who did not work in the mailroom was not properly before the Court and, in any event, would not necessarily establish unauthorized access, improper receipt, or removal of the records from the distribution centre. Without an underlying privacy breach, ESDC was not required to report a “material privacy breach.”
Key Takeaways
- The Court found the original refusal-to-investigate relief moot after the OPC investigated and issued its Report.
- The Report challenge was not properly before the Court because the application was neither renewed nor amended.
- In the alternative, the Court found no established unreasonableness or procedural unfairness.
- The application was dismissed, with no costs awarded despite the respondent’s request.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the procedural importance of aligning judicial-review relief with the decision actually being challenged, particularly where administrative developments occur after an application is filed. Its mootness and scope rulings arose from the sequence and filings in this case; the Court did not announce a universal rule governing every later-issued report.
The alternative merits analysis also underscores the OPC’s investigative discretion and the distinction between disagreeing with an investigation’s extent and demonstrating procedural unfairness or unreasonable findings. The Court’s conclusions were tied to this record, including the absence of evidence establishing inappropriate disclosure.