
PIPEDA Report of Findings #2017-009: Airline relies on access exemption to refuse traveler’s access to their personal information
A traveler complained that an airline failed to provide complete access to his personal information, specifically documents and correspondence related to being denied boarding in 2015. The airline invoked exemptions under PIPEDA, arguing the information was collected to investigate a breach of agreement or contravention of law (s.7(1)(b)) and disclosed to a government institution for law enforcement purposes (s.7(3)(c.1)(ii)). The OPC found that the collection without consent was justified under s.7(1)(b) because it was for investigating potential non-compliance with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and that requiring consent would have compromised the investigation. The OPC also found the disclosure to a government institution was permissible under s.7(3)(c.1)(ii). Furthermore, the OPC determined that the airline was prohibited from providing access to the requested information under s.9(2.4) because the government institution objected to its release. Therefore, the OPC concluded that the airline properly relied on the exemptions.
- 1Whether the airline's collection of personal information without consent was justified under paragraph 7(1)(b) of PIPEDA
- 2Whether the airline's disclosure of personal information without consent was justified under subparagraph 7(3)(c.1)(ii) of PIPEDA
- 3Whether the airline was required to provide access to the requested personal information under Principle 4.9 of Schedule 1, given the exemptions under section 9 of PIPEDA
- Collection without consent: Justified under s.7(1)(b)
- Disclosure to government: Permissible under s.7(3)(c.1)(ii)
- Access to information: Prohibited under s.9(2.4)
- Exemption reliance: Properly relied upon by institution
Complaint not well-founded
The OPC found that the airline appropriately applied the exemptions under PIPEDA for both the collection and disclosure of the complainant's personal information, and was therefore not required to provide access to the requested records.
- Principle 4.3 PIPEDA
- Principle 4.9 PIPEDA
- paragraph 7(1)(b) PIPEDA
- subparagraph 7(3)(c.1)(ii) PIPEDA
- subparagraph 9(2.1)(a)(i) PIPEDA
- paragraph 9(2.4)(a) PIPEDA
- paragraph 9(2.4)(b) PIPEDA
- subparagraph 9(2.4)(c)(i) PIPEDA
- paragraph 9(3)(c.1) PIPEDA
- subsection 9(5) PIPEDA
This summary is for informational purposes 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