I researched this, and I believe that both Barker's quote and this summary are not entirely correct. The reality in Canada is more nuanced.

---

1. Non-conviction records are not publicly available, and require the consent of the individual to be released.

> If someone is arrested and charged, that record is publicly accessible to anyone for a few dollars. If the charges go nowhere, the record of the arrest and charge remains on the public record forever.

Not exactly. The person under consideration must give their consent before the records are released.

From the Alberta Civil Liberties Research Centre (ACLRC) [1]: "In Alberta, an individual’s consent is required before police will perform a search of their police records for background check purposes. [...] Although it is common practice to provide the results only to the individual who requested the check, there is some variation depending on the police services. It may be released to an employer or volunteer agency when the individual requesting the check signs a consent form, or it is agreed to by both parties. No other outside party will receive any negative information about the individual."

This is also backed up by a report from a Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) publication, distributed by Public Safety Canada (a department of the federal government) [1] (Page 23) [2]:

"How does the Police Information Check process work? Most police services indicated that the Police Information Check process requires that the individual requesting the information attend a police station in person with identification and payment."

---

2. Barker's quote has inaccuracies, though there is a core of truth. Several different levels of criminal record checks exist, and not all levels include non-conviction records.

> "In Canada, a criminal record is not a record of conviction, it’s a record of charges and that’s why I can’t work now,” Barker said. “Potential employers never find out what the nature of it is, they just find out that I have a criminal arrest record.”

While it's true that Barker said this, it looks like the reporter took his word without adding important nuance (though I appreciate Krebs on Security's work to bring attention to the issue, and the thoroughness of the description of the fraud).

In reality, according to the ACLRC, employers who choose to request a background check must first request the candidate to submit a consent form to a police department, before the employer can access that person's records. So, the record is not publicly available to any person. (Anecdotally, this matches with my personal experiences applying for the most in-depth check—called the Vulnerable Sector Check, or VSC—in the past.)

---

3. The least in-depth record check would not include non-conviction records; the middle-depth record check may or may not include these records, depending on the judgement of the police department; and the most in-depth record check would always include these records.

But this is where there is ambiguity about whether non-conviction records are included. While it might be expected that the Vulnerable Sector Check would include these charges as this check is the most in-depth, the ACLRC also identifies two lower levels of checks: the Criminal Record Check (CIC) and Police Information Check (PIC).

According to the ACLRC, it looks like the CIC does not require a list of non-conviction records (aka charges without conviction), but a police department may reveal non-conviction records in certain cases for a PIC.

From the ACLRC article: "The police will often disclose your non-conviction records in a PIC if they believe the information will help the potential employer or other agency in their decision-making process. This assumes that these agencies are qualified to make a determination that the information disclosed will determine the candidate’s suitability or pose a safety risk.

"It may lead to unfair stigmatization and result in the candidate being excluded from consideration for the position. As a result, the candidate may never know why they have been excluded from consideration, and thus are unable to respond. Although never convicted for a crime, the candidate will suffer an invisible form of punishment. The repercussions may reach beyond the denial of a position to a lingering loss of self-esteem, trust, and respect from the community."

---

To summarize: while I completely sympathize with Barker and hope his situation can be quickly and justly resolved, Barker's quote is not completely incorrect, but it can be misleading.

It's possible that more nuanced information from Barker was omitted from the final article, but in any case, a person's record of charges that did not lead to a conviction is not publicly available. Instead, access to these records requires an individual to submit a consent form to a police department.

Furthermore, not all potential workplaces require a the type of background check that would reveal these non-conviction records. Some workplaces would require a Criminal Record Check (CIC), which would not include these records. Others, however, would require a Police Information Check (PIC), which may or may not include these records, depending on the police department's response.

I want to re-emphasize that Barker's situation is unjust, and clearly puts him in a difficult situation in life. But it is in the reader's interest to know the Canada's legal situation in reality includes important nuances that differ from the account provided in the article.

---

Sources:

[1] https://www.aclrc.com/disclosure-of-non-conviction-records

[2] https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/lbrr/archives/cnmcs-plcng/cn3...

---

If any person with legal expertise is reading this, as my commentary is based on personal research without relevant legal training, please feel free to add your perspective.