PIPEDA Case Summary #2016-004: Retailer shares customer’s in-store behaviour with the customer’s employer
A customer complained that a retail store employee disclosed his personal information to his employer, including his name, in-store behavior, and statements made to staff. The store argued the information was not personal because it was made publicly, and that it had implied consent for the disclosure. The OPC found that information overheard by others is still personal information under PIPEDA. The OPC also determined that implied consent was not appropriate given the sensitive nature of the information, which had the potential to negatively affect the customer's employment. The store's disclosure without knowledge or consent contravened Principle 4.3 of PIPEDA. The complaint was found to be well-founded and resolved after the store implemented the OPC's recommendations.
- 1Whether the information shared was personal information under PIPEDA
- 2Whether the customer provided implied consent for the disclosure of his personal information
- 3Whether the disclosed information was sensitive
- 4Whether the customer had a reasonable expectation that his information would be shared with his employer
- 5Whether the publicly available information exception to consent applied
- Definition of personal information: Information overheard publicly is still personal information
- Implied consent: Implied consent not appropriate for sensitive information
- Disclosure without consent: Disclosure contravened Principle 4.3
- Complaint outcome: Complaint well-founded and resolved
Complaint well-founded and resolved
The OPC found that the store contravened Principle 4.3 by disclosing the complainant's personal information without his knowledge or consent, as the information was personal, implied consent was not applicable, and no exceptions to consent applied. The matter was resolved after the store implemented the OPC's recommendations.
The store formally communicated its PIPEDA obligations to the representative who disclosed the information and all members of its senior management team.
- Principle 4.3 PIPEDA
- Principle 4.3.5 PIPEDA
- Principle 4.3.6 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