
PIPEDA Case Summary #2018-005: Courier company discontinues practice of delivery to a neighbour
A complainant alleged that a courier company disclosed her personal information without consent by delivering a package containing financial documents to her neighbour. The courier company's policy allowed drivers to deliver packages to neighbours if the addressee was not home, a practice the complainant was unaware of as she was not expecting the package. The OPC found that the courier company contravened Principle 4.3 of PIPEDA by failing to obtain consent for this practice, either directly from the complainant or by ensuring the shipper had obtained it. The OPC noted that the sensitivity of the package's contents and the complainant's unlisted phone number on the label heightened the need for express consent. The courier company committed to ending the 'delivery to a neighbour' practice in response to the OPC's recommendations. The OPC later confirmed the practice had ceased.
- 1Whether the courier company obtained valid consent for delivering a package to a neighbour
- 2Whether the courier company exercised due diligence to ensure the shipper obtained consent for 'delivery to a neighbour'
- 3Whether the information disclosed (name, address, unlisted telephone number, and package contents) was sensitive in context
- Consent for disclosure: Courier company contravened PIPEDA Principle 4.3
- Policy change: Courier company committed to ending practice
- Compliance with recommendations: Practice confirmed ceased
Complaint well-founded and conditionally resolved, with the practice subsequently ended.
The OPC found that the courier company failed to obtain valid consent for its 'delivery to a neighbour' practice, either directly or by ensuring the shipper had done so, thereby contravening Principle 4.3 of PIPEDA. The resolution was conditional upon the company's commitment to end the practice, which it subsequently did.
The courier company committed to ending the practice of 'delivery to a neighbour' in response to the OPC's recommendations.
- Principle 4.3 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