Canadians were required to answer the mandatory long-form census
Every five years, Statistics Canada conducts a national census to determine Canada’s population and help allocate representation in the House of Commons. While most households complete a short census questionnaire, a smaller number are selected to complete the mandatory long-form census.
Bradley and Linda Osborne of Foothills County, Alberta, were among the households selected to complete the 2026 long-form census.
Under the Statistics Act, households selected for the long-form census must answer the questionnaire accurately. Failing to do so, or knowingly providing false information, may result in fines.
Couple objected to mandatory disclosure of private information
The Osbornes objected to being compelled, under threat of penalty, to disclose highly personal information that they believed exceeded the lawful purpose of Canada’s census.
The 2026 long-form census required answers to questions about health conditions, daily activities, commuting habits, housing circumstances, religion, ancestry, disabilities, mental health, sexual orientation, sex at birth, and gender identity.
With assistance from lawyers funded by the Justice Centre, the Osbornes applied to the Federal Court for judicial review.
Application asked the Court to define constitutional limits
The application argued that while Canada’s Constitution requires a census for purposes such as democratic representation, that constitutional requirement does not give the government unlimited authority to compel disclosure of deeply personal information.
The application asked the Federal Court to declare that portions of the 2026 long-form census questionnaire exceeded the authority granted by the Statistics Act. In the alternative, it argued that requiring Canadians to answer certain questions violated sections 7 and 8 of the Charter, which protect 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.”
Federal Court will decide how far mandatory census questions can go
The Osbornes did not seek damages or costs. Instead, they asked the Federal Court to determine the constitutional limits of mandatory census collection and the extent to which governments may compel Canadians to disclose highly personal information.
The case is awaiting a decision from the Federal Court.