
PIPEDA Case Summary #2015-015: Roofing company takes measures to ensure sub-contractors follow its privacy policy
An individual complained that an estimator working for a roofing company (the "second roofer") disclosed his personal financial situation and contractual history to a competitor (the "first roofer") without his consent. The individual had engaged the second roofer for an estimate to fix issues with work done by the first roofer, and later cancelled a contract with the second roofer. The OPC found that the estimator was acting as an agent for the second roofer, making the second roofer responsible for the estimator's actions. The OPC concluded that the disclosure of personal information without the individual's knowledge or consent contravened Principle 4.3 of PIPEDA. The second roofer subsequently implemented recommendations to establish agreements with sub-contractors to adhere to its privacy policy and provide training. As a result, the complaint was deemed well-founded and resolved.
- 1Whether the estimator was acting as an agent of the second roofer
- 2Whether the second roofer was responsible for the personal information handling practices of its estimator
- 3Whether personal information was disclosed without the individual's knowledge or consent
- 4Whether the disclosure contravened Principle 4.3 of PIPEDA
- Agent's actions: Second roofer responsible for estimator's actions
- Disclosure of personal information: Contravened Principle 4.3 of PIPEDA
- Complaint outcome: Well-founded and resolved
Complaint well-founded and resolved
The OPC found that the estimator was an agent of the second roofer, making the company responsible for the unauthorized disclosure of personal information. The company took satisfactory corrective measures during the investigation.
The second roofer implemented the OPC's recommendation to establish agreements requiring sub-contractors to adhere to the company's privacy policy and to provide them with privacy training.
- Principle 4.3 PIPEDA
- s.7(3) PIPEDA
This summary is for informational purposes 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