
PIPEDA findings #2016-013: Company’s disclosure of information about a debt owed is not covered under exemption to consent
An individual complained that a sports facilities company disclosed his personal information, specifically details about an outstanding debt, to a related sports association on two occasions without his consent. The company did not deny the disclosures but argued they were made in response to direct questions and with an expectation of privacy. The OPC found that information about a debt owed by an identifiable individual is personal and sensitive, requiring consent for disclosure unless a specific exemption applies. The OPC determined that the disclosures were not for the purpose of collecting the debt, thus the exemption under paragraph 7(3)(b) of PIPEDA did not apply. The company's reliance on an 'expectation of privacy' or being asked directly was not a valid substitute for obtaining consent. The complaint was found to be well-founded.
- 1Whether the disclosure of debt information without consent contravened Principle 4.3 of PIPEDA
- 2Whether the disclosure was exempt from consent under paragraph 7(3)(b) of PIPEDA for debt collection purposes
- 3Whether an 'expectation of privacy' or responding to a direct question constitutes a valid exception to consent requirements
- Disclosure of personal information: Disclosure without consent violated PIPEDA
- Nature of information: Debt information is personal and sensitive
- Exemption under 7(3)(b): Exemption for debt collection did not apply
- Expectation of privacy defense: Defense not a substitute for consent
- Complaint outcome: Complaint well-founded
Complaint well-founded
The OPC found that the company disclosed the complainant's sensitive personal debt information without consent, and none of the exemptions under PIPEDA, including the debt collection exemption, applied to the circumstances of the disclosure.
- Principle 4.3 PIPEDA
- s.7(3)(b) 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