← Back to catalogue/Federal (Canada)PIPEDA Case Summary #2017-004
Federal (Canada)Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActNot well-founded

PIPEDA Case Summary #2017-004: Consent provided extends to third-party doctor hired to evaluate accident insurance claim

Organization: A doctor hired by an independent medical evaluation firmComplainant: Anonymous applicant
Plain-language brief

An individual complained that a doctor collected, used, and disclosed his personal information without consent. The complainant had been in a car accident and his insurance company hired an independent medical evaluation (IME) firm to assess his claim for catastrophic impairment. The doctor in question was hired by the IME firm to compile a summary report based on assessments from other doctors. The complainant argued he had not consented to this specific doctor, though he had consented to other doctors involved in his claim. The doctor contended that the complainant had provided consent through signed accident benefit forms (OCF-1 and OCF-19). The OPC found that the signed forms included explicit consent for health professionals to collect, use, and disclose personal information for the purpose of investigating and processing the insurance claim. The OPC concluded that the doctor's actions were within the scope of the consent provided.

Key issues
  1. 1Whether the doctor collected, used, and disclosed the complainant's personal information without consent
  2. 2Whether the consent provided in OCF-1 and OCF-19 forms extended to the doctor preparing the summary report
Outcome breakdownFavours: Institution
  • Consent for collection: Consent found
  • Consent for use: Consent found
  • Consent for disclosure: Consent found
  • Scope of consent: Doctor's actions within scope
Outcome

Complaint not well-founded

Reasoning

The OPC found that the complainant had provided explicit consent through signed insurance forms (OCF-1 and OCF-19) for health professionals, including the doctor in question, to collect, use, and disclose his personal information for the stated purposes of his insurance claim.

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