Is Skip Tracing Legal in Canada? PIPEDA & the Law

Skip tracing is legal in Canada when conducted by a licensed investigator operating under two overlapping legal frameworks: federal privacy law under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), S.C. 2000, c. 5, and provincial licensing law under Ontario’s Private Security and Investigative Services Act, 2005.

Conducting skip tracing for remuneration without a valid provincial PI licence is an offence under PSISA s. 6, carrying penalties up to $25,000 for an individual and $250,000 for a corporation under s. 45(1). This post explains what Canadian law permits and prohibits: the governing statutes, the five SOR/2001-7 categories of information collectible without consent, what methods cross into unlawful territory, where the Criminal Code boundary sits, and what a PIPEDA-compliant locate looks like in practice.

What skip tracing is under Canadian law

Skip tracing is the systematic, record-driven process of locating a person whose current address or contact information is unknown. A licensed investigator conducts it using publicly accessible registries, open-source digital sources, and regulated databases. The locate is documented in a written report that identifies each source, the date of access, and the regulatory basis for each query.

Under s. 6 of the Private Security and Investigative Services Act, 2005, no person shall act as a private investigator unless they hold the appropriate licence issued by the Ministry of the Solicitor General. The PSISA defines a private investigator as a person who investigates on behalf of another to obtain information about the identity, location, or activities of a person — skip tracing falls squarely within that definition. Under s. 45(1), an individual convicted of unlicensed practice faces a fine of up to $25,000, imprisonment for up to one year, or both; a corporation faces a fine of up to $250,000.

The scope boundary matters: skip tracing is a locate service — it answers “where is this person now?” It does not include ongoing covert surveillance, device interception, or access to private financial records held by banks or the CRA; those require different legal authorities or court process. For the full picture of what a licensed skip trace finds and cannot reach, see skip tracing services in Ontario.

What federal and provincial law governs skip tracing in Canada

Three layers of Canadian law govern a licensed skip trace.

• Provincial licensing — PSISA s. 6: Under Ontario’s Private Security and Investigative Services Act, 2005, only a licensed investigator may conduct skip tracing for remuneration. Every other province has equivalent private investigator licensing legislation; Ontario’s PSISA s. 45(1) penalties apply within the province.

• Federal privacy law — PIPEDA s. 7(1)(b) and s. 7(1)(d): Under s. 7(1)(b) of PIPEDA, S.C. 2000, c. 5, an organization may collect personal information without the individual’s knowledge or consent when it is reasonable to expect that obtaining consent would compromise the availability or accuracy of the information and the collection relates to investigating a breach of an agreement or a contravention of the laws of Canada or a province. Under s. 7(1)(d), information that is publicly available and specified by the Regulations Specifying Publicly Available Information, SOR/2001-7 may be collected without consent, provided the collection purpose aligns with the purpose for which the information is publicly available.

• OPC purpose-alignment requirement: The OPC Interpretation Bulletin on Publicly Available Information clarifies that information must be both publicly available AND specified by SOR/2001-7, and the collection purpose must relate directly to the purpose for which the information appears in its source. This purpose-alignment requirement shapes every step of a lawful skip trace.

The Regulations Specifying Publicly Available Information, SOR/2001-7 define the five categories of information collectible without consent: s. 1(a) telephone directory listings where the subscriber may opt out; s. 1(b) professional and business directory entries, where collection must relate to the directory’s purpose; s. 1(c) information in statutory registries open to public access, where collection must relate to the registry’s purpose; s. 1(d) records of a judicial or quasi-judicial body available to the public; and s. 1(e) published materials — magazines, books, or newspapers — that the individual voluntarily provided.

What PIPEDA’s SOR/2001-7 permits — and where the line is drawn

The OPC’s purpose-alignment rule has a concrete implication for skip tracing: publicly available status alone does not make a collection lawful. A bankruptcy record published for insolvency proceedings cannot be used for an unrelated commercial purpose. A telephone directory listing does not authorize marketing campaigns. Each skip-trace query must trace its collection purpose to a specific SOR/2001-7 regulatory category, and the purpose must align with why that information is publicly available in the first place.

The OPC’s Interpretation Bulletin on Publicly Available Information makes the dual condition explicit: personal information must be both publicly available AND specified by SOR/2001-7, and the collection, use, or disclosure must relate directly to the purpose for which the information appears in its source. A statutory registry record collected to locate a judgment debtor satisfies that purpose alignment — the debtor’s address appears in the registry as part of the public court record, and locating the debtor for enforcement is related to the judicial purpose of the record. A court record collected to build an unsolicited marketing list does not.

The practical implication is that a PIPEDA-compliant skip trace is purpose-bounded at every step. The investigator documents not only the source but the connection between that source’s public purpose and the collection’s reason. Necessity also constrains the search: once sufficient information exists to locate the person, collection stops. Gathering more than the locate requires is the excess that the OPC’s proportionality principle prohibits.

What makes a skip trace unlawful in Canada: the five prohibited methods

A skip trace becomes unlawful in Canada when the investigator steps outside the five SOR/2001-7 categories or violates PIPEDA’s collection principles. The five methods that cross the line are:

1. Pretexting: Collecting personal information through false pretences, deception, or misrepresentation. In PIPEDA Case Summary #2008-392, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner found a well-founded complaint against a private investigation firm that delivered a magazine under the false pretence of a survey reward to photograph a disability claimant with a concealed camera. The OPC held the photograph unnecessary because sufficient evidence already existed by less privacy-invasive means, and that the s. 7(1)(b) without-consent collection ground does not apply when read with the principle of limiting collection.

2. Impersonation of the subject, a relative, or a government official: Contacting a bank, employer, or government registry while claiming to be someone else to extract the subject’s personal information crosses into Criminal Code s. 403 territory (identity fraud/impersonation). The PSISA licensing requirement adds an independent Ontario-law prohibition: an unlicensed person who conducts such extraction for remuneration commits an offence under s. 6.

3. Collection beyond the declared purpose: Accessing a SOR/2001-7 source — a professional directory, a statutory registry, a court record — for a purpose unrelated to why that information is publicly available. The OPC purpose-alignment rule renders such collection non-consensual and without a valid PIPEDA collection ground.

4. Accessing information outside the five SOR/2001-7 categories: Querying a source that does not fall within telephone directories, professional/business directories, statutory registries, judicial records, or published materials. Private financial records, communications, and employment records held by third parties are not publicly available information under SOR/2001-7 and cannot be collected without consent.

5. Necessity failure: Collecting more information than the locate requires once sufficient location data exists. The OPC’s proportionality principle under PIPEDA limits collection to what is necessary for the stated purpose. Continuing to query additional sources after a confirmed location address is established is an excess that the limiting-collection principle prohibits.

What the Criminal Code prohibits: identity fraud, pretexting, and impersonation

Two Criminal Code provisions mark the hard criminal boundary for skip tracing.

• Criminal Code s. 402.2 — identity theft: Under the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 402.2 makes it an offence to obtain or possess another person’s identity information with intent to use it to commit a fraud, deceit, or falsehood — or to traffic in that identity information knowing it will be so used. The maximum penalty on indictment is five years imprisonment.

• Criminal Code s. 403 — identity fraud and impersonation: Under s. 403 of the Criminal Code, identity fraud makes it an offence to fraudulently impersonate another person — living or dead — with intent to gain an advantage, obtain property, cause disadvantage to the impersonated person, or avoid arrest or prosecution. The maximum penalty on indictment is ten years imprisonment.

Both offences require that the actor obtain, traffic, or impersonate ANOTHER person’s identity — they do not govern ordinary investigative record-searches of publicly available information. The relevance to lawful skip tracing is as the line that must not be crossed: an investigator who pretexts by impersonating the subject, a relative, or a government official to extract the subject’s personal information from a bank, employer, or government registry can engage both the s. 402.2 prohibition and the s. 403 impersonation offence, in addition to violating PIPEDA’s prohibition on collection by false pretences. The subject located by a lawful skip trace commits no offence by being located.

The CAFC received 9,683 identity fraud reports in 2024 — the highest volume of any single fraud type — underscoring why the Criminal Code’s pretexting boundary matters in the skip-tracing context. For the full scope of identity fraud methods, costs, and demographic patterns in Canada, see the identity theft statistics Canada research compilation.

How a lawful skip trace unfolds: the PIPEDA-compliant sequence

A PIPEDA-compliant skip trace follows a documented sequence that records the regulatory basis for each step.

1. Intake and purpose confirmation: The investigator confirms the legitimate purpose for the locate and assesses which PIPEDA collection grounds apply — s. 7(1)(b) (investigating a breach or contravention, where obtaining consent would compromise accuracy) or s. 7(1)(d) (publicly available information under SOR/2001-7). Purpose is recorded before any query begins.

2. Telephone directory query (SOR/2001-7 s. 1(a)): The investigator checks telephone directory listings where the subscriber has not opted out. Source, access date, and purpose-alignment basis are logged.

3. Professional and business directory query (SOR/2001-7 s. 1(b)): Professional and business directory entries are queried where the collection relates to the directory’s purpose — confirming employment address or professional registration, not building a marketing profile.

4. Statutory registry and judicial record query (SOR/2001-7 s. 1(c) and s. 1(d)): Land title registries, corporate registries, and court records open to the public are queried where the collection purpose relates to the registry’s or court’s purpose. Each record is logged with source, date, and the SOR/2001-7 category it falls under.

5. Published materials and open-source digital sources (SOR/2001-7 s. 1(e)): Publicly available published materials — including information the subject voluntarily provided online — are reviewed. Open-source digital queries are bounded by the same purpose-alignment rule: the information is used because the subject made it public, not because it can be accessed.

6. Cross-reference and verification: Each data point is cross-referenced across multiple sources. Conflicting information is noted; the most recent and source-reliable entry is used.

7. Written location report: The final output is a written location report, not a verbal disclosure. The report identifies each source, the SOR/2001-7 category, the access date, and the purpose-alignment basis for each record queried. Chain-of-custody documentation is what demonstrates PIPEDA compliance and supports admissibility if the report is tendered in proceedings.

The CAFC recorded $643.7 million in reported fraud losses in 2024 — nearly four times the $165 million recorded in 2020 — with only 5 to 10 percent of fraud incidents ever reported to authorities. That loss volume explains why creditors, estate lawyers, and judgment-enforcement counsel commission skip traces to locate judgment debtors before enforcement proceedings. For the year-over-year breakdown and provincial data, see the fraud statistics in Canada research compilation.

What this means for anyone who needs to locate a person in Canada

A lawful skip trace in Canada is distinguishable from an unlawful one by three markers: the investigator holds a valid PSISA licence; every record accessed falls within SOR/2001-7’s five publicly available information categories and the collection purpose aligns with the purpose for which that information is publicly available; and no pretexting, impersonation, or false-pretences collection method is used. Anyone who needs to locate a person — for judgment enforcement, estate administration, family law service, or a missing-person inquiry — should retain a licensed PSISA investigator whose written location report documents source chains and collection grounds.

As licensed PSISA investigators operating across Ontario, we conduct skip trace investigations for lawyers, creditors, estate administrators, and families — producing written location reports with documented source chains that identify the SOR/2001-7 category and access date for each record queried. Our practice operates within the bounds set by PSISA s. 6, PIPEDA’s publicly available information framework, and the OPC’s purpose-alignment requirement. To discuss a locate inquiry, call +1 (888) 680-0036 or visit our skip tracing service page.

Licensed · Insured · Bonded.