The catalogueFederal (Canada)
Federal (Canada)

Federal (Canada) privacy & access decisions

Browse privacy decisions from Federal (Canada) — each with an AI-generated plain-language summary for every ruling.

1 decision matching
Federal (Canada)Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActNot well-founded
Federal (Canada) flag
Aug 4, 2020PIPEDA Findings #2020-001Indexed Jun 30, 2026

PIPEDA Findings #2020-001: Bank ensures openness and comparable protection for personal information transferred to third party

TD Canada Trust

A former employee of TD Canada Trust complained that TD outsourced fraud claims processing to a third-party service provider in India without obtaining customer consent or offering an opt-out. The complainant also alleged that TD was not sufficiently open about this practice. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC) also investigated whether TD maintained accountability by ensuring a comparable level of protection for personal information transferred to the third party. The OPC found that TD was not required to obtain additional consent, as the information was used for the original purpose of fraud claims management for which consent was already obtained. Furthermore, TD was deemed sufficiently open, providing clear information about transfers to foreign jurisdictions in its account agreements and privacy resources. The OPC concluded that TD ensured a comparable level of protection through a robust contract, comprehensive risk assessments, employee controls, cybersecurity measures, and proactive monitoring. Consequently, all aspects of the complaint were found to be not well-founded.

Quick view

Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActNot well-founded

PIPEDA Findings #2020-001: Bank ensures openness and comparable protection for personal information transferred to third party

Aug 4, 2020PIPEDA Findings #2020-001
Adjudicator: Daniel Therrien
Plain-Language Summary

A former employee of TD Canada Trust complained that TD outsourced fraud claims processing to a third-party service provider in India without obtaining customer consent or offering an opt-out. The complainant also alleged that TD was not sufficiently open about this practice. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC) also investigated whether TD maintained accountability by ensuring a comparable level of protection for personal information transferred to the third party. The OPC found that TD was not required to obtain additional consent, as the information was used for the original purpose of fraud claims management for which consent was already obtained. Furthermore, TD was deemed sufficiently open, providing clear information about transfers to foreign jurisdictions in its account agreements and privacy resources. The OPC concluded that TD ensured a comparable level of protection through a robust contract, comprehensive risk assessments, employee controls, cybersecurity measures, and proactive monitoring. Consequently, all aspects of the complaint were found to be not well-founded.

Key Issues
  • Whether TD was required to obtain additional consent for transferring personal information to a third-party service provider in India for fraud claims processing (Principle 4.3 PIPEDA)
  • Whether TD was required to offer customers an opt-out for the transfer of personal information to a third-party service provider in India for fraud claims processing
  • Whether TD was sufficiently open about its practice of transferring personal information to a third-party service provider in a foreign jurisdiction for processing (Principle 4.8 PIPEDA)
  • Whether TD ensured a comparable level of protection for personal information processed by the third-party service provider in India (Principle 4.1.3 PIPEDA)