Evidence over hype
Rodal Report: What Canada’s Court Ordered Disclosed About Nazi War Criminals
A Federal Court ordered Canada to disclose Rodal Report material withheld under section 15. One section 13 passage remains protected, and the public archive copy was unchanged at the September 6 verification cutoff.
Source trail
Claim → sources → boundary
2026 FC 1119
Shows what the Federal Court held and ordered. It does not prove disclosure was completed or reveal the hidden text.
LAC item 6043354
Identifies Alti Rodal’s report and the public redacted copy. Visible redactions cannot prove what is underneath them.
2024 OIC 76
Explains the earlier access complaint and findings. It does not prove the later judgment, release, or anyone’s guilt.
A Canadian report about alleged Nazi war criminals and collaborators stayed partly redacted for almost 40 years. On September 1, 2026, the Federal Court ordered the government to disclose most of the remaining material at issue in the Rodal Report. That is the current news. It is also where careful reading has to begin, because the Court ordered disclosure. It did not publish a new list, open every related file, or decide that any named person was guilty.
Source: Wikimedia Commons. Library and Archives Canada headquarters on Wellington Street in Ottawa. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
Quick Answer
In B’nai Brith Canada v Minister of Canadian Heritage, 2026 FC 1119, Justice Simon Fothergill ordered disclosure of Rodal Report information withheld under section 15(1) of Canada’s Access to Information Act. The Court upheld one section 13(1)(a) redaction covering a confidential U.S. official’s opinion about the “100 Persons Act.”
At 10:58 p.m. EDT on September 6, 2026, the official Library and Archives Canada PDF was downloaded again. Its SHA-256 hash was unchanged from our September 5 copy, and the LAC catalogue still called it a redacted version. The ordered passages were therefore not public in that official object at this cutoff. Targeted searches found no newer indexed judgment, appeal, or stay, but that is a time-stamped search result, not proof that no filing exists.
Source: Wikimedia Commons. National Archives microfilm room in Ottawa, photographed by Ken Eckert. Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.
Source trail at a glance
- B’nai Brith Canada v Minister of Canadian Heritage, 2026 FC 1119: a court-stamped judgment copy hosted by The Canadian Jewish News. It proves what the Federal Court held and ordered. It does not prove that disclosure has been completed, reveal the hidden text, or establish anyone’s guilt.
- Alti Rodal, Nazi War Criminals in Canada: The Historical and Policy Setting from the 1940s to the Present, LAC item 6043354: opens the public redacted Library and Archives Canada PDF. The LAC catalogue identifies the record as item 6043354; the redactions cannot prove what is underneath them.
- Library and Archives Canada (Re), 2024 OIC 76: proves the complaint history, LAC’s supplementary disclosure, and the Office of the Information Commissioner’s access findings before the court case. It does not prove the later judgment or a post-judgment release.
The companion Canada Rodal Report source finder puts these three records side by side.
Source: Wikimedia Commons. Entrance to a federal courtroom in the Supreme Court of Canada Building, photographed by Mr Serjeant Buzfuz. Licensed under CC0. Used here as federal-court context, not as a photograph of this specific hearing.
What is the Rodal Report?
The Rodal Report is historian Alti Rodal’s September 1986 study, Nazi War Criminals in Canada: The Historical and Policy Setting from the 1940s to the Present. Rodal prepared it for the Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals, commonly called the Deschênes Commission. Library and Archives Canada identifies the record as item 6043354, reference R188-130-5-E, RG13, volume 4196.
The report examined Canadian policy concerning immigration, refugees, alleged war criminals, and collaborators after the Second World War. In the passages discussed by the Court, Rodal described American intelligence activity, the resettlement of defectors and former agents, and irregular processing by some Canadian immigration offices. Those are Rodal’s historical findings and interpretations. The access ruling quotes and describes them, but it is not a criminal trial of the people mentioned in the underlying records.
That distinction matters. “Alleged war criminal,” “suspected collaborator,” “foreign intelligence official,” “immigration officer,” and “convicted offender” are different categories. A name or an RCMP file number may point a researcher toward a record. Neither is a finding of guilt.
What did the Federal Court order in 2026 FC 1119?
B’nai Brith Canada requested an unredacted copy from LAC in March 2023. LAC released progressively less-redacted versions, and B’nai Brith complained to the Office of the Information Commissioner. In November 2024, the OIC found the complaint well founded because LAC had initially withheld material improperly, while accepting the exemptions LAC continued to apply after its February 2024 supplementary disclosure.
B’nai Brith then went to Federal Court. Justice Fothergill allowed the application in part. The operative order says: “The Minister shall disclose the information subject to the exemptions applied pursuant to s 15(1) of the ATIA.”
Section 15 is a discretionary, injury-based exemption. It allows a federal institution to refuse disclosure where release could reasonably be expected to injure international affairs, defence, or specified security interests. The Court found that the Minister had not shown a clear, current, non-speculative injury from releasing the information. It also found that LAC had not reasonably weighed the public’s right to know, the historical importance of the record, elapsed time, and prior disclosure.
What section 15 material must be disclosed?
The judgment describes 21 withheld report excerpts. They include names of foreign intelligence officials, their roles and duties, statistical information, descriptions of historical events, and text that overlaps with the surviving section 13 redaction. It also describes 15 redacted endnote references that contain RCMP file numbers, seven of which had been inadvertently disclosed before.
That description sets the safe boundary. The Court ordered the section 15 information disclosed. The judgment does not print the hidden values in advance, and it does not say that the concealed names are a newly discovered list of alleged Nazi perpetrators. The names the judgment specifically identifies in this group are foreign intelligence officials. The RCMP references are file numbers, not convictions.
What information remains secret under section 13?
One confidential U.S. opinion remains protected. It concerns the U.S. “100 Persons Act” and appears in a quotation from a 1954 memorandum by former RCMP Deputy Commissioner W.H. Kelly.
Section 13 of the Access to Information Act is mandatory when a record contains information obtained in confidence from a foreign government or one of its institutions, unless that government consents to disclosure or makes the information public. Justice Fothergill found that the U.S. official’s opinion was given in confidence and that the United States had not consented to its release. He observed that the information appeared innocuous and suggested that Canada consider continuing to seek consent, but he did not order it disclosed.
Is the ordered Rodal Report text public yet?
Not in the official LAC copy at the latest verified cutoff. At 10:58 p.m. EDT on September 6, 2026, the downloaded PDF was 23,710,943 bytes and had the same SHA-256 hash recorded on September 5: 67eddf49a805e9875592ecc8c5c12069dd4064dc5e605c039e4602277e6b0322. LAC still described the linked electronic copy as redacted.
The judgment itself gives no implementation date. A September 4 report by The Canadian Jewish News said the documents had not yet been released to B’nai Brith and that the judge set no timeline. Searches through the September 6 cutoff found no indexed official full-text decision, CanLII copy, appeal, stay, or announcement of completed disclosure. Those are negative checks with a timestamp. They should be repeated before publication and should never be turned into a categorical claim that no filing exists.
Is the Rodal Report the same as Deschênes Commission Part II?
No. The Rodal Report was a research study prepared for the Deschênes Commission. The Commission’s own report had a public Part I and a confidential Part II. The Government of Canada catalogue describes Part I as a 966-page report and quotes its letter of transmittal: Part I was designed for publication, while Part II was “destined to remain confidential.”
The September 1 order addresses the contested redactions in the Rodal Report. It does not open confidential Deschênes Commission Part II. It also does not order release of the separate “list of 900” discussed in other public debates. Combining those disputes produces a bigger headline but a less accurate source trail.
What does the ruling prove, and what does it not prove?
The ruling proves that the Federal Court confirmed the section 13 exemption, rejected the section 15 withholding, and ordered the section 15 information disclosed. It proves that the government did not meet its legal burden on the claimed section 15 harms.
It does not prove that disclosure has happened. It does not reveal what every redaction says. It does not release Deschênes Commission Part II. It does not authenticate a new Nazi list. Most importantly, an access-to-information judgment is not a criminal finding. It decides whether information may remain withheld under federal access law, not whether any individual committed a crime.
This is why I keep coming back to the source sequence rather than the most dramatic headline. The judgment tells us what must be disclosed. The archive record tells us what the public object is. The OIC decision tells us how the access dispute reached court. Each source answers a different question.
Where can I read the Rodal Report and court records?
Start with the three locked receipts above, or use the companion source page to compare them. For the legal text, read section 13 and section 15 of the Access to Information Act. The Federal Court file search can be searched for docket T-200-25.
If you are building your own source trail, the method is simple: separate the decision, the document being requested, and the earlier administrative record. PSF’s How It Works page explains that source-first workflow, and the PSF blog has more examples of reading claims against the records that can actually support them.
Sources
- https://thecjn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Federal-Court-decision-Sept-1-2026.pdf
- https://central.bac-lac.gc.ca/.item?op=pdf&id=e011865749
- https://www.oic-ci.gc.ca/en/decisions/final-reports/library-and-archives-canada-re-2024-oic-76
- https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/A-1/section-13.html
- https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/A-1/section-15.html
- https://publications.gc.ca/pub?id=9.699749&sl=0
- https://www.fct-cf.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/court-files
- https://thecjn.ca/news/federal-court-orders-carney-government-to-release-more-nazi-war-criminal-documents
Frequently asked questions
What is the Rodal Report?
The Rodal Report is Alti Rodal’s September 1986 study on Canadian postwar policy concerning immigration, refugees, alleged war criminals, and collaborators. It was prepared for the Deschênes Commission, and Library and Archives Canada holds the public redacted copy as item 6043354.
What did 2026 FC 1119 order Canada to disclose?
The Federal Court ordered disclosure of Rodal Report information withheld under section 15(1) of the Access to Information Act. The judgment does not disclose the hidden text itself.
What did the Court leave protected under section 13?
The Court upheld one section 13(1)(a) redaction covering a U.S. official’s confidential opinion about the ‘100 Persons Act.’ The section 15 material was ordered disclosed but remained redacted in the official LAC PDF at the September 6 cutoff.
Is the full Rodal Report public now?
The official Library and Archives Canada PDF remained redacted at the September 6, 2026, 10:58 p.m. EDT verification cutoff. This is a dated status check and may change.
Did the Court release a list of Nazi war criminals?
No. The Court ordered section 15 material in the Rodal Report disclosed. It did not publish a new list, decide anyone’s guilt, or open confidential Deschênes Commission Part II.
What is the difference between the Rodal Report and the Deschênes Commission report?
The Rodal Report is a research study prepared for the Commission. The Commission’s own report had a public Part I and a confidential Part II. The 2026 order concerns Rodal Report redactions, not Part II.
Has Canada appealed or obtained a stay?
No appeal or stay was found in targeted searches through 10:58 p.m. EDT on September 6, 2026. Because the official registry could not be fully refreshed through automated extraction, this is not proof that no filing exists.
Find the primary sources behind any historical claim
Search any topic and get the most relevant primary and secondary sources, ranked by historical importance, with free copies wherever they exist online.
Find sources for your topic