Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Complaint under paragraph 29(1)(d): the extension taken by the RCMP is not justified. A file number, and a request to the RCMP to keep the video.
The letter ·
Complaint under paragraph 29(1)(d) of the Privacy Act - RCMP, extension of request P-2026-09810
Hello,
This is a complaint under paragraph 29(1)(d) of the Privacy Act against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It concerns one incident: the extension of the time limit on my request P-2026-09810. It is separate from file PA-075935, which concerns the disclosure of 16 May 2026.
The request. On 24 September 2026 I asked the RCMP for every record about me held by the White Butte Detachment and by "F" Division on the police contact of 6 May 2026 and the telephone call with the Canada Border Services Agency of 16 May 2026. The request names the record types: occurrence report, notebook entries, in-car video, body-worn camera, vehicle location data, dispatch and PROS records, queries on my name, the call with CBSA and the statutory declaration provided to CBSA. The period is 1 May to 24 September 2026. The request is attached.
The extension. On 8 October 2026 the RCMP extended the time limit by 30 days under subparagraph 15(a)(i), on the ground that meeting it would unreasonably interfere with operations. The new date is 23 November 2026. The notice states no fact about the search, the volume of records or the operations affected. It is attached.
Why the extension is unreasonable. The request concerns one encounter, one detachment and one telephone call. On 6 October 2026 the White Butte Detachment wrote to me that the encounter is captured on Chilliwack RCMP File 2026-17350. The records are identified and located. Retrieving one file does not interfere with the operations of the RCMP.
Preservation. In-car video, body-worn camera recordings and vehicle location data are kept for short periods. Paragraph 4(1)(b) of the Privacy Regulations requires personal information to be kept, once a request for access has been received, until the individual has had the opportunity to exercise all rights under the Act.
The Office is required to:
1. investigate the extension under paragraph 29(1)(d);
2. find it unreasonable and recommend that the RCMP answer the request without further delay;
3. ask the RCMP to confirm in writing that the in-car video, body-worn camera recordings and vehicle location data of 6 May 2026 are preserved.If the RCMP has not answered by 23 November 2026, the request is deemed refused under subsection 16(3), and the next step is an application to the Federal Court under section 41 of the Act.
This exchange goes into the public record at https://dzyuban.com/legal/record/
Respectfully,
Danilo Dzyuban
Attachments: RCMP-Privacy-Act-request-2026-09-24.eml, RCMP-extension-notice-2026-10-08-P-2026-09810.eml
The answer ·
Protégé B - Protected B
Dear Danilo Dzyuban:
The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada is responsible for overseeing the Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). The Privacy Act covers the personal information handling practices of federal government institutions, while PIPEDA covers the private sector's personal information handling practices in the course of a commercial activity, with some exceptions.
We would invite you to submit an official complaint through our Online complaint form <https://plainte-complaint.priv.gc.ca/en/register-pipeda>; . Any complaints submitted should be specific, against a single identified institution, and about a clearly identified incident. Complaints must also include supporting information and documentation to substantiate the potential contravention of the Act.
Sincerely,