The right to privacy
Lawyers funded by the Justice Centre have filed an application for judicial review in Federal Court challenging certain portions of the federal government’s 2026 long-form census questionnaire.
The application argues that Canadians selected for the mandatory long-form census are being compelled under threat of penalty to disclose highly personal information that exceeds the lawful scope of the census and infringes Charter-protected privacy rights.
The application was filed on behalf of Bradley and Linda Osborne, a married couple from Foothills County, Alberta, whose household was selected to complete the mandatory long-form census.
Under the Statistics Act, Canadians selected for the long-form census must complete the questionnaire and provide accurate information. Refusing to do so, or knowingly providing false information, may result in a fine of up to $500 upon summary conviction.
Constitutional limits on mandatory census collection
The application challenges a series of questions requiring disclosure of highly personal information, including health conditions, daily activities, commuting habits, housing circumstances, sexual orientation, and gender identity.
The applicants argue that while the Constitution requires a census to be conducted for purposes including democratic representation, some questions included in the 2026 long-form census extend beyond what is necessary to fulfill that constitutional purpose.
The Federal Court application seeks declarations that portions of the questionnaire were prescribed beyond the authority granted under the Statistics Act and, alternatively, that requiring Canadians to answer certain questions infringes sections 7 and 8 of the Charter, protecting liberty and privacy against unreasonable state intrusion.
Constitutional lawyer Hatim Kheir said, “Canada’s census serves an important constitutional function, including ensuring fair democratic representation. But a constitutional requirement to count people does not automatically authorize the state to compel disclosure of intimate details about health, personal identity, daily routines, and private life.”
Mr. Kheir continued, “Privacy is not a minor administrative concern. The Charter recognizes that personal information goes to individual dignity and liberty. When government compels disclosure of sensitive information under threat of penalty, courts must ask whether that intrusion is actually necessary and proportionate.”
Case seeks clarification on privacy and government data collection
The applicants are not seeking damages or costs. Instead, they seek clarification from the Federal Court on the constitutional limits of mandatory census collection and the protection of personal privacy in an age of growing digital data retention.
The application has been filed in Federal Court and will proceed in accordance with the Court’s scheduling process. Supporting affidavit evidence is expected to follow within 30 days of filing.
Case updates will be posted as further materials are filed and the Court schedules next steps in the proceeding.
