The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner has launched an investigation examining the Town of Happy Valley – Goose Bay’s use of body worn cameras. The Town has acquired two body worn cameras for use by its Municipal Enforcement Officer and Animal Control Officer.

“Since learning about the Town’s use of body worn cameras through the media in March, my Office has been trying to work with the Town informally to ensure that their use is compliant with the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 2015 (ATIPPA, 2015)” says Information and Privacy Commissioner Michael Harvey. “However, the body cameras are still in use and we still have concerns about the policy governing them. For these reasons, I find it necessary to launch a formal investigation under section 73 of the Act. Such an investigation will provide a clear legal framework for our inquiries and for any recommendations that I may make.”

Body worn cameras, like other forms of video surveillance, collect personal information indiscriminately. While public bodies have the authority to collect personal information, the scope of that authority is specified in law and it is not unlimited. Furthermore, privacy legislation requires that the use of personal information be the minimum required for the identified purpose. The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner strongly encourages any public body considering such technology to consult with the Commissioner, and also to ensure they have buy-in from and the public prior to implementing such technology.

In 2015, privacy commissioner offices across Canada released joint guidance on body worn cameras, available on the Privacy Commissioner of Canada’s website. While recognizing that there are legitimate situations for the use of body cameras, the guidance calls on law enforcement agencies to evaluate, in each specific context and for the specific intended purposes and uses, whether the expected benefits outweigh the impact on privacy. Important steps include public awareness of the initiative, appropriate safeguards (including encryption, restricted access to recordings and strict retention periods), program specific policies and procedures, and any secondary uses (such as officer training).

“Body cameras can now be easily acquired at low cost at places like Best Buy and Amazon. But implementing a legally compliant program of law enforcement worn body cameras is much more complicated. Toronto Police Services, for example, is only now piloting its body worn camera initiative in one Division after consulting the provincial government, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner, other stakeholders and the public, and developing a program that considers privacy, security and disclosure responsibilities,” said Harvey. “To our knowledge, Happy Valley – Goose Bay is the first municipality in this province to decide that it wants to do this. Our investigation will help clarify for the Town, and to the rest of the province, if and how it can be done in compliance with the law.”

The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner is an independent Office of the House of Assembly which oversees compliance with the Personal Health Information Act (PHIA) and the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 2015 (ATIPPA, 2015).

– 30 –

Media contact
Sean Murray
Director of Research and Quality Assurance
709-729-6309