← Back to catalogue/Federal (Canada)Declined to Investigate Case Summary #2013-001
Federal (Canada)Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActDeclined to investigate

Declined to Investigate Case Summary #2013-001: Court procedures provided a more appropriate means to address access issues in ongoing litigation between complainant and retailer

Organization: A retailerComplainant: Anonymous applicant
Plain-language brief

An individual filed a complaint against a retailer, alleging that the retailer withheld access to her personal information, contravening subsection 8(3) and Principle 4.9 of PIPEDA. The complainant and retailer were involved in ongoing small claims court litigation, and the complainant stated the information was necessary for her case. The retailer refused access, citing litigation privilege and prior disclosure. The OPC declined to investigate the complaint, finding that the court's procedures provided a more appropriate means for the complainant to address the access issues. This decision was based on avoiding conflict with provincial court rules and ensuring judicious use of public resources.

Key issues
  1. 1Whether the complaint could more appropriately be dealt with by means of a procedure provided for under the laws of a province under paragraph 12(1)(b) of PIPEDA
  2. 2Whether the retailer withheld access to personal information in contravention of subsection 8(3) of PIPEDA
  3. 3Whether the retailer withheld access to personal information in contravention of Principle 4.9 of Schedule 1 of PIPEDA
Outcome breakdownFavours: Institution
  • Jurisdiction: OPC declined to investigate
  • Access to personal information: Complaint not investigated
Outcome

Declined to investigate

Reasoning

The OPC declined to investigate because provincial court procedures offered a more appropriate avenue for the complainant to address her access issues within the context of ongoing litigation.

AI-generated summary for reference only. Always verify against the official decision ↗
Decision notes
Statutes considered
  • s.8(3) PIPEDA
  • Principle 4.9 PIPEDA
  • s.12(1)(b) 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