← Back to catalogue/Federal (Canada)Settled Case summary #2010-001
Federal (Canada)Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActSettled

Settled Case summary #2010-001: Dental benefit information available to parents with daughter’s consent (January 6, 2010)

Organization: A dental plan administratorComplainant: Parents of a 17-year-old daughter
Plain-language brief

The parents of a 17-year-old dependent complained that they could not access their daughter's online dental benefit information from their group dental plan administrator. The administrator's policy required consent from individuals aged 16 or older before their information could be accessed by another plan member, even parents. The administrator defended its policy by citing PIPEDA's consent requirements, the lack of a national age of majority consensus, and the distinction between age of majority and age of consent. The policy was based on the Ontario Health Care Consent Act, which suggests 16 as an age for health care consent. The mother was satisfied with the explanation and understood that she could access her daughter's account if her daughter provided consent by sharing her password.

Key issues
  1. 1Whether a dental plan administrator requires consent from a 17-year-old dependent to disclose her dental benefit information to her parents
  2. 2Whether the age of majority or age of consent impacts the requirement for consent under PIPEDA for minors
Outcome breakdownFavours: Institution
  • Access to dependent's information: Administrator's policy upheld
  • Consent for access: Consent requirement for 16+ upheld
  • PIPEDA compliance: Administrator's policy aligned with PIPEDA
Outcome

Complaint settled — administrator's policy upheld as reasonable

Reasoning

The administrator's policy requiring consent from individuals 16 and older was deemed reasonable given PIPEDA's consent requirements and the complexities surrounding the age of consent for minors. The complainant was satisfied with the explanation and the proposed method for accessing the information.

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