← Back to catalogue/Federal (Canada)PIPEDA Case Summary #2016-011
Federal (Canada)Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActNo jurisdiction

PIPEDA Case Summary #2016-011: Defending against a civil lawsuit not considered a commercial activity

Organization: A psychiatrist retained by an independent medical evaluation providerComplainant: Anonymous applicant
Plain-language brief

An individual (the plaintiff) filed a complaint after a psychiatrist, retained by an insurance company to assess the plaintiff's well-being for a civil lawsuit, did not provide full access to his personal information. The plaintiff had requested access to his personal information held by the psychiatrist and received only a redacted report, leading to concerns about the completeness and accuracy of the information. The OPC investigated whether the psychiatrist's collection and use of the plaintiff's personal information constituted a "commercial activity" under PIPEDA. The OPC determined that defending against a civil lawsuit is not a commercial activity, and therefore, PIPEDA did not apply. The complaint was ultimately dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.

Key issues
  1. 1Whether the collection and use of a plaintiff’s personal information for the purpose of defending against a civil lawsuit constitutes a "commercial activity" under PIPEDA
  2. 2Whether PIPEDA applies to the activities of a third-party retained to carry out an activity exempt from PIPEDA
Outcome breakdownFavours: Institution
  • Jurisdiction: PIPEDA not applicable
  • Commercial activity: Defense against lawsuit not commercial activity
  • Complaint status: Complaint dismissed
Outcome

No jurisdiction — defending against a civil lawsuit is not a commercial activity

Reasoning

The OPC found that the psychiatrist's actions were for the purpose of defending a civil lawsuit, not a commercial activity, and therefore PIPEDA did not apply. This finding was based on the Federal Court's decision in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. The Privacy Commissioner of Canada.

AI-generated summary for reference only. Always verify against the official decision ↗
Decision notes
Statutes considered
  • s.2 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