Condita Research
← Back to catalogue/Federal (Canada)Commissioner’s Findings - PIPEDA Report of Findings # 2012-010
Federal (Canada)Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActWell-founded & resolved

Commissioner’s Findings - PIPEDA Report of Findings # 2012-010: Telecommunications firm adopts additional accountability measures to ensure a consistent approach in handling access requests

Organization: A telecommunications firmComplainant: Anonymous applicant
BookmarkView Governing Law
Plain-language brief

A complainant alleged that a telecommunications firm failed to provide her with access to her personal information, specifically notes and transcripts of recorded conversations related to an account dispute. The firm acknowledged receiving the access request but mistakenly believed it was not necessary to provide the information due to ongoing settlement negotiations. The OPC found that the firm failed to respond to the access request within 30 days and did not issue an extension notice, thus contravening PIPEDA subsections 8(3), 8(4), and 8(5). Furthermore, the firm purged the requested audio records, violating subsection 8(8) and Principles 4.9 and 4.9.4. The firm's internal policies were found to be unclear and staff training inadequate, leading to the erroneous deletion of records. The OPC made several recommendations, which the firm accepted and implemented, including amending policies and providing staff training. As a result, the complaint was deemed well-founded and resolved.

Key issues
  1. 1Whether the telecommunications firm responded to the access request within the 30-day time limit under subsection 8(3) PIPEDA
  2. 2Whether the telecommunications firm issued a notice of extension for the access request under subsection 8(4) PIPEDA
  3. 3Whether the telecommunications firm was deemed to have refused the access request under subsection 8(5) PIPEDA
  4. 4Whether the telecommunications firm provided access to personal information as required by Principle 4.9 PIPEDA
  5. 5Whether the telecommunications firm responded to the access request within a reasonable time and at minimal or no cost under Principle 4.9.4 PIPEDA
  6. 6Whether the telecommunications firm retained personal information that was the subject of an access request for as long as necessary to allow the individual to exhaust any recourse under subsection 8(8) PIPEDA
  7. 7Whether the telecommunications firm implemented policies and practices to give effect to the principles, including training staff and communicating policies and practices under Principle 4.1.4(c) PIPEDA
Outcome breakdownFavours: Applicant / complainant
  • Timeliness of response: Firm contravened PIPEDA subsections 8(3), 8(4), and 8(5)
  • Record retention: Firm violated PIPEDA subsection 8(8) and Principles 4.9 and 4.9.4 by purging records
  • Internal policies and training: Firm's policies unclear and staff training inadequate
  • Complaint outcome: Complaint well-founded and resolved
Outcome

Complaint well-founded and resolved

Reasoning

The firm failed to provide access to personal information within the statutory timelines and improperly purged records. However, the firm accepted and implemented all OPC recommendations to amend its policies and improve staff training, resolving the contraventions.

AI-generated summary for reference only. Always verify against the official decision ↗
Decision notes
Recommended action / remedy

The OPC recommended that the firm amend its policy, procedure, and flow chart documents to clarify that access requests must be responded to within statutory timelines even during dispute resolution, ensure consistency between policy and procedure regarding retention of audio recordings, submit revised documents for review, and provide a detailed training and communications plan for employees on handling access requests.

Statutes considered
  • Principle 4.1.4 (c) PIPEDA
  • Principle 4.9 PIPEDA
  • Principle 4.9.4 PIPEDA
  • s.8(3) PIPEDA
  • s.8(4) PIPEDA
  • s.8(5) PIPEDA
  • s.8(8) PIPEDA

This summary is informational only and not legal advice.

Pro · AI

Decisions with similar reasoning and facts — found by AI across statutes and jurisdictions, not just keywords.

Pro
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