Canada’s ‘Right to Be Forgotten’ Deserves More Than Google’s Resistance

When the federal privacy commissioner ruled that Canadians should, in certain circumstances, have the right to be forgotten online, it marked a turning point in our digital lives. For years, Canadians have watched Europe grapple with the idea that individuals should not be forever haunted by outdated or irrelevant information online—especially when it involves charges that were dropped or accusations that never led to conviction. Now, that debate has arrived squarely at our doorstep.

The case at the heart of this issue is both simple and devastating. A person, once charged with a crime that was later dropped, has spent years battling the lingering scars of outdated articles tied to their name. Those links have cost them job opportunities, created social stigma, and, shockingly, even led to physical assault. In the eyes of privacy commissioner Philippe Dufresne, this is exactly the kind of harm the “right to be forgotten” is meant to prevent.

The commissioner recommended that Google remove those specific search results when someone looks up the individual’s name, while leaving the articles themselves intact and accessible. That’s not censorship—it’s balance. It ensures the stories remain in the public domain, but without unfairly tying a person’s identity forever to an incident that legally never existed.

Yet Google refuses to comply. The company argues that such decisions risk undermining freedom of expression and the public’s right to information. That sounds noble, but it’s also convenient. In reality, what Google is protecting is its own business model: an algorithmic empire built on indexing and surfacing everything, regardless of the human cost.

Freedom of expression and the right to access information are crucial pillars of democracy. But so is the right to live free from ongoing digital punishment for something you didn’t do. Nobody is saying the press should retract articles. Nobody is demanding history be rewritten. The only question is whether outdated and potentially harmful information should define a person’s identity every time someone types their name into a search bar.

Canada’s courts have already sided with the privacy commissioner in affirming that federal privacy law applies to Google’s search engine. Google lost its appeal in 2023. Now, as the commissioner considers “all available options” to secure compliance, the ball is firmly in Google’s court.

At stake is not just one individual’s dignity, but the future of digital fairness in Canada. Do we want a society where people can rebuild after mistakes, false accusations, or dropped charges? Or one where an algorithm ensures their worst moment—proven or not—follows them for life?

Google may be uncomfortable with the right to be forgotten. But for Canadians, it might be a right whose time has come.