Canada’s Directive on Automated Decision-Making

Canada’s Directive on Automated Decision-Making is a Treasury Board policy instrument, not a general statute for every Canadian employer or private-sector AI system. It applies to institutions subject to the Policy on Service and Digital when a production automated decision system makes an administrative decision or a related assessment about a client. The amended scope also includes internal services such as federal hiring, performance management, and employee security screening. Research-only systems and test environments are excluded. Other federal organizations are encouraged to follow it as good practice where it does not apply. Before production, the responsible senior official must complete, approve, and publish an Algorithmic Impact Assessment (AIA), then apply the requirements corresponding to the assessed impact level. The AIA asks about the decision, system design, data, privacy, security, transparency, recourse, and potential impacts, including accessibility and disability-related concerns. The four levels scale safeguards: higher-impact systems face more demanding peer review, notice, explanation, human involvement, testing, monitoring, and contingency requirements. The AIA must be reviewed and updated on schedule and when system functionality or scope changes. The 2025 directive update applies to new or procured systems from 24 June 2025. The transition deadline for systems developed or procured before that date was 24 June 2026 and has now passed; covered systems are expected to meet the new or updated requirements. Agents of Parliament have a transition period to the same date with specified publication exceptions. Required peer-review findings must be published before launch for applicable levels. AIA level is a risk classification within the federal directive, not a claim that a system is safe in every context. Departments should identify the decision and legal authority, assign a senior owner, complete the AIA early, and document how each triggered requirement is met. If a system is only advisory but influences an administrative outcome, the directive may still apply. A vendor’s assessment does not replace the institution’s own AIA or accountability.