
Commissioner’s Findings - PIPEDA Report of Findings #2013-005: Beneficiary’s access to estate information is limited to his own personal information under PIPEDA
An individual, claiming to be a beneficiary of two estates, sought access under PIPEDA to estate information from a legal firm that had acted as an agent for another firm administering the estates. The complainant requested information pertaining to himself as a beneficiary and general beneficiary entitlements. The legal firm initially failed to respond to the access requests, leading to a complaint with the OPC. The firm later responded, stating it held no personal information about the complainant and that neither he nor the estates were clients. The OPC found that the firm contravened PIPEDA by not responding within the 30-day time limit. However, the OPC also determined that the complainant was only entitled to access information specifically about himself, not general estate information, and was satisfied that the firm had conducted a reasonable search for his personal information. The complaint was deemed well-founded and resolved due to the firm's initial failure to respond.
- 1Whether a legal firm must respond to an access request within 30 days, even if it holds no personal information about the requester
- 2Whether a beneficiary of an estate is entitled under PIPEDA to access general estate information
- 3Whether the requested information (e.g., statements of accounts, money received, disbursements) constitutes the complainant's personal information under PIPEDA
- 4Whether the legal firm conducted a reasonable search for the complainant's personal information
- Timeliness of response: Contravention found
- Scope of access right: Limited to personal information
- Adequacy of search: Search found reasonable
Complaint well-founded and resolved
The complaint was well-founded because the legal firm failed to respond to the access request within the 30-day statutory limit. It was resolved because the firm subsequently provided a response and the OPC was satisfied that the firm had conducted a reasonable search and held no personal information about the complainant.
- Principle 4.9 PIPEDA
- Principle 4.9.1 PIPEDA
- s.2(1) PIPEDA
- s.8(3) PIPEDA
- s.8(5) 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