The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada ("OPC") issued its findings on August 27, 2025 in connection with an investigation regarding the issue of whether individuals have the right to have information about them de-listed from search engine results. The OPC found that in limited circumstances, there is such a right where the search results are likely to cause significant harm to an individual, such as a risk of harm to a person's safety or dignity, that outweigh any public interest in that information remaining accessible when searching the individual's name.
The OPC investigation resulted from a complaint against Google, which arose after an individual faced a criminal charge that was dropped shortly after it was laid. Years later, news articles about the charge continued to be searchable online when the individual's name was searched, and the individual claimed it caused them direct harm, including physical assault, lost employment opportunities and severe social stigma. The OPC considered whether Google, by continuing to display the search results in response to searches for the complainant's name, collected, used or disclosed personal information only for a purpose that a reasonable person would consider appropriate in the circumstances, in accordance with subsection 5(3) of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act ("PIPEDA").
The OPC concluded that the harms to the complainant's safety and dignity from displaying the articles in question outweighed the limited public interest in being able to access those articles through a search for the complainant's name. Several factors were noted by the OPC in favour of de-listing the information in response to a search of the complainant's name:
- The complainant is not a public figure, and the highly sensitive information in the articles relates to the complainant's private life, as opposed to their public or working life;
- While the articles related to a criminal charge, the charge was stayed and there was evidence to support that the complainant did not pose a current public risk;
- The public's ability to find articles in response to a search of the complainant's name does not meaningfully contribute to public debate concerning the criminal law's treatment of the allegations;
- The vast majority of the articles provide incomplete, and arguably misleading information, as they have not been updated to clarify that the proceedings have been stayed, and without additional context, the public may make unsubstantiated judgements about the complainant which could cause serious harm to the complainant; and
- The articles were published many years ago and the passage of time further diminishes the public interest in linking the articles to the complainant's name.
The OPC noted that the right to de-listing requires a careful balance of the individual's fundamental right to privacy (a statutory objective of PIPEDA) with the right to freedom of expression under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter"). While the OPC acknowledged the right to freedom of expression is broad, it is also not absolute as the Supreme Court of Canada has noted "Charter principles do not provide a licence to damage another person's reputation simply to fulfill one's… desire to express oneself", and privacy can be the basis for making an exception to the open court principle. In the context of the facts specific to this matter, the OPC determined that de-listing the articles represents an appropriate balance.
This decision recognizes the existence of the right to de-listing under PIPEDA, which is consistent with the de-indexing right under the Act respecting the protection of personal information in the private sector (Quebec's private sector privacy law).
While Google has declined to implement the OPC's recommendations, the Commissioner indicated that the OPC is considering all available options to secure Google's compliance under PIPEDA.
