← Back to catalogue/Federal (Canada)PIPEDA Case Summary #2002-82
Federal (Canada)Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActNot well-founded

PIPEDA Case Summary #2002-82: Alleged disclosure of personal information without consent for secondary marketing purposes by a bank

Organization: A bankComplainant: Anonymous applicant
Plain-language brief

An individual complained that a bank failed to obtain proper consent for the collection, use, or disclosure of personal information for secondary marketing purposes. The complainant alleged that the bank did not adequately inform customers of its data sharing practices with affiliates, failed to provide clear information on potential secondary uses, and did not offer an easy opt-out mechanism. The OPC investigated the bank's privacy materials and processes, finding that the bank provided two privacy documents to customers and had a detailed privacy code available online or in paper format. The bank also had a process where representatives drew attention to privacy policies and recorded customer preferences regarding disclosure to affiliates. The Commissioner found that the bank's materials and processes constituted a reasonable effort to inform individuals and allow them to refuse or withdraw consent. The complaint was therefore found to be not well-founded.

Key issues
  1. 1Whether the bank obtained adequate knowledge and consent for secondary marketing purposes under Principle 4.3
  2. 2Whether the bank made a reasonable effort to advise individuals of the purposes for which information would be used, as required by Principle 4.3.2
  3. 3Whether the purposes were stated in a manner that individuals could reasonably understand, as per Principle 4.3.2
  4. 4Whether the bank considered the reasonable expectations of the individual in obtaining consent, as per Principle 4.3.5
Outcome breakdownFavours: Institution
  • Consent for secondary marketing: Bank's practices found reasonable
  • Information on data sharing: Bank adequately informed customers
  • Opt-out mechanism: Bank provided reasonable opt-out
  • Complaint outcome: Complaint not well-founded
Outcome

Complaint not well-founded

Reasoning

The Commissioner found that the bank's privacy materials and processes constituted a reasonable effort to ensure customers were advised of secondary purposes and could withdraw consent, thus complying with PIPEDA Principles 4.3, 4.3.2, and 4.3.5.

AI-generated summary for reference only. Always verify against the official decision ↗
Decision notes
Statutes considered
  • Principle 4.3 PIPEDA
  • Principle 4.3.2 PIPEDA
  • Principle 4.3.5 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