PIPEDA findings #2017-011: Financial institution originally misuses confidential commercial information exemption to withhold personal information
A complainant alleged that a financial institution refused to respond to his access to personal information request related to a disputed credit card transaction. Initially, the financial institution withheld documents, claiming they contained confidential commercial information under PIPEDA s.9(3)(b). The OPC found this exemption was inappropriately applied and that the financial institution failed to respond within the statutory 30-day timeframe. Following the OPC's preliminary report, the financial institution provided further clarification, leading the OPC to determine that the information in question was not the complainant's personal information and was correctly redacted under s.9(1) as third-party information. Although the complainant eventually received all personal information he was entitled to, the OPC criticized the financial institution's delay and initial misuse of the exemption. The complaint was found to be well-founded and resolved.
- 1Whether the financial institution responded to the access request within the 30-day time limit required by PIPEDA s.8(3)
- 2Whether the financial institution sent a notice of extension within 30 days of the request as required by PIPEDA s.8(4)
- 3Whether the financial institution appropriately applied the confidential commercial information exemption under PIPEDA s.9(3)(b) to withhold documents
- 4Whether the withheld information constituted the complainant's personal information
- 5Whether the information was properly redacted as third-party information under PIPEDA s.9(1)
- Timeliness of response: Institution failed to respond within 30 days
- Application of s.9(3)(b): Exemption initially misapplied by institution
- Personal information: Information in question not complainant's personal information
- Application of s.9(1): Redaction of third-party information upheld
- Overall complaint: Complaint well-founded and resolved
Complaint well-founded and resolved
The financial institution initially misused the confidential commercial information exemption and failed to respond within the statutory timeframe. However, it eventually provided the complainant with all personal information he was entitled to, and the remaining withheld information was correctly identified as third-party information.
The OPC recommended that the financial institution provide the complainant with access to all his personal information, including the Acquirer Representment Form, the Pre-Arb Questionnaire, and the Chargeback Questionnaire, and encouraged the institution to prioritize responsiveness, timeliness, and quality in dealing with access requests.
- Principle 4.9 PIPEDA
- s.8(3) PIPEDA
- s.8(4) PIPEDA
- s.9(1) PIPEDA
- s.9(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