The Divisional Court has overturned an Ottawa Police Service decision to deny a woman’s request have her fingerprints and photographs destroyed after criminal charges against her were withdrawn.
While the court didn’t go as far as ordering destruction of the fingerprints and photos, it did order Ottawa police to reconsider the decision in accordance with the court’s reasons, which outlined the need to individually assess these requests rather than to fall back on blanket policies.
Heather Reichert’s photos and fingerprints were collected by police after she was arrested in January 2024 and charged with five counts of assault, four counts of assault with a weapon and three counts of mischief to property, based on allegations from her former spouse.
However, charges were withdrawn in August 2024, when Reichert entered into a peace bond, agreeing to conditions including that she have no communication with her former spouse, that she not be within 150 metres of where she knew him to be and that she kept no weapons in her possession.
After the 12-month peace bond expired “without incident,” Reichert requested that police destroy her biometric information, but police denied the request in September 2025 and rejected a request for reconsideration one month later, citing the nature of the alleged offence, public safety and public interest.
But the court found the Ottawa Police Service policy to be “unreasonable” since it required such requests for certain categories of offences to be automatically denied without considering the individual circumstances of the case.
The judgment stated that people who had not been convicted retained their privacy rights to fingerprints and photographs. While police may have reason to retain the information, it was only justified in “exceptional circumstances” around whether the fingerprints would be of use to police in the future.
“Retention cannot be justified by abstract references to the seriousness of the alleged allegations,” the court found.
The court also found that Ottawa police did not properly explain why retaining Reichert’s fingerprints and photographs would be justified. Although the case went in front of a reconsideration committee, which listed the factors it had considered, the court found it did not explain how those factors supported the decision to deny the reconsideration.
While Reichert’s lawyers were seeking an order requiring the Ottawa Police Service to destroy the fingerprints and photographs, the court will instead return the matter to the police to reconsider its decision “with the benefit of the court’s reasons.”
In a statement to the Ottawa Citizen, the Ottawa Police Service said it “respects the court’s decision” and “recognizes the importance of balancing individual privacy rights with public safety and law enforcement responsibilities.”
“We recognize the significance of the court’s decision and will consider its implications for our existing policies and procedures,” police wrote. “The OPS is committed to ensuring its policies and practices are consistent with applicable legislation and judicial direction. Any changes determined to be necessary will be considered as part of that review.”
Police added they were not in a position to comment on specific potential amendments, citing an ongoing review.
Related
Take control of your search results. Make the Ottawa Citizen a preferred source on Google and see verified local reporting first.