Northwest Territories: a bilingual health statute, and a broad duty to give notice

A health statute enacted in French as well

The territorial health statute — the Health Information Act, S.N.W.T. 2014, c. 2 — has been in force since 1 October 2015. We read the official bilingual English-French consolidation published by the Northwest Territories Department of Justice, current to a 2026 amendment.

The Northwest Territories enacts its statutes in a parallel French version, which neither Yukon nor the three anglophone Atlantic provinces do. For a French-speaking reader in the north, that means an official text exists in their language, not merely a courtesy translation.

The statute uses the word « custodian », as Ontario, Alberta and the Atlantic provinces do, rather than « trustee » as in Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

Section 87: notice, with no harm threshold in the text

Section 87 reads: « Subject to any prescribed exceptions, a health information custodian shall give notice to an individual and, if applicable, to a prescribed person or organization, as soon as reasonably possible if personal health information about the individual is (a) used or disclosed other than as permitted by this Act; (b) lost or stolen; or (c) altered, destroyed or otherwise disposed of without authorization. »

That is a real, codified duty to notify. The section text itself sets no harm threshold: on its face it is broader than the « real risk of significant harm » thresholds used federally, in Alberta and in Manitoba.

One caveat belongs here rather than a suggestion of an absolute rule: the section opens on prescribed exceptions, and the statute's regulation-making power allows for them. We have not consulted those regulations. So we assert neither that exceptions exist nor that none do.

This section reaches health information custodians. It does not reach an ordinary business: a garage, a salon or a haulage firm is not a custodian.

Where a complaint goes

For ordinary commercial activity, a customer complaint about the use of their information goes to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.

In the territory, oversight of the access statute and the health statute rests with the territorial information and privacy commissioner. We could not load that office's site — an anti-bot challenge blocked every attempt — so we publish neither its exact name, nor its complaint address, nor the name of the current office-holder.

That is a gap we name rather than fill with an approximate address. A wrong address on a page about law sends someone nowhere at the worst possible moment.

Recording a call, the federal rule, and what leaves the territory

The Criminal Code does not stop a business that is party to a call from recording it: the exception in section 184(2)(a), read with section 183.1, is satisfied by the consent of one party. Privacy law asks on top of that for the caller to be told at the start of the call about the recording and its purpose, for it not to be used for another purpose, for a different route to be offered to someone who declines, for access on request, and for limited retention. At Zenvox the disclosure is spoken before the microphone opens and cannot be switched off.

Since 1 November 2018: report to the federal commissioner and notify affected individuals of any breach of security safeguards creating a real risk of significant harm, and keep a record of every breach for 24 months from the day you conclude it occurred.

The split holds in the north as in the south: federal law governs information moving out of the territory or out of the country. What leaves here, and how long a copy survives elsewhere, is read at the foot of this page — one place, so that there are not two.

Federally, Bill C-27 died on the Order Paper on 6 January 2025, and Bill C-36, tabled on 15 June 2026, stood at second reading on 15 September 2026, without royal assent.