PIPEDA Case Summary #2013-014 — An online dating service and The new owner of the online dating service
An individual complained that an online dating service continued to send him marketing emails after he cancelled his membership and requested his information be deleted. He also alleged the service denied him access to his personal information. During the investigation, the dating service was sold, and the new owner inherited the customer database. The OPC found the original service violated PIPEDA by denying access, retaining information longer than necessary, continuing to use his email for marketing after consent withdrawal, lacking a privacy policy, and failing to safeguard information. While some issues were resolved by the new owner, the denial of access and destruction of photographs during an access request were found to be well-founded and unresolved.
- 1Whether the organization denied the complainant access to his personal information in violation of Principle 4.9
- 2Whether the organization failed to respect the 30-day time limit for access requests under subsection 8(3)
- 3Whether the organization contravened subsection 8(8) by destroying photographs, limiting the complainant's recourse
- 4Whether the organization retained the complainant's information longer than necessary in contravention of Principle 4.5.3
- 5Whether the organization continued to use the complainant's personal information for marketing after consent withdrawal, contravening Principle 4.3.8
- 6Whether the organization lacked a privacy policy in contravention of Principle 4.1.4(d)
- 7Whether the organization failed to safeguard the complainant's personal information as required by Principle 4.7.1
- Access to personal information: Denial of access violated PIPEDA
- Retention of information: Information retained longer than necessary violated PIPEDA
- Marketing emails after withdrawal: Continued marketing after consent withdrawal violated PIPEDA
- Privacy policy: Lack of privacy policy violated PIPEDA
- Safeguards: Failure to safeguard information violated PIPEDA
- Destruction of photographs: Destruction of photographs during access request was well-founded
Complaint well-founded in part, well-founded and resolved in part
The OPC found that the organization denied the complainant access to his personal information and destroyed records relevant to an access request, which remained unresolved. Other contraventions were found but resolved by the new owner's actions during the investigation.
The new owner ultimately destroyed all of the complainant's personal information under its control and posted a detailed privacy policy. The OPC did not order specific remedies for the unresolved findings, but noted the new owner's actions.
- Principle 4.9 PIPEDA
- s.8(3) PIPEDA
- s.8(8) PIPEDA
- Principle 4.5.3 PIPEDA
- Principle 4.3.8 PIPEDA
- Principle 4.1.4(d) PIPEDA
- Principle 4.7.1 PIPEDA
This summary is informational only and not legal advice
Related by meaning
Decisions with similar reasoning and facts — found by AI across statutes and jurisdictions, not just keywords.
Coverage — 13 of 14 jurisdictions searchable
Fully searchable: Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador, Northwest Territories, New Brunswick, Manitoba.
Partial (recent decisions only): Federal (Canada) (651 of 1,631), Nova Scotia (49 of 472), Quebec (6 of 7,090), Prince Edward Island (2 of 279), Yukon (1 of 75).
Coming soon: Nunavut — being re-processed for AI search.
Find decisions like this one — by meaning, not keywords.
Related by meaning is a Pro feature. Upgrade to surface conceptually similar decisions across the corpus, powered by AI.
Upgrade to Pro