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.

18 decisions matching
Federal (Canada)Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActWell-founded
Federal (Canada) flag
Feb 12, 2008BackgrounderIndexed Jun 30, 2026

Backgrounder: Ticketmaster Investigation

Ticketmaster Canada Limited

The OPC investigated Ticketmaster Canada Limited (TM) following a complaint that its practices for collecting, disclosing, and using customer personal information for marketing purposes did not comply with PIPEDA. The complainant alleged that customers were not properly informed or given a viable alternative to sharing their information for marketing. The Assistant Privacy Commissioner found that TM failed to uphold the principles of openness and consent. TM subsequently revised its privacy policy and online notifications to explicitly communicate information sharing practices and provide clear opt-in options for marketing. The investigation concluded that the issues were resolved satisfactorily, but the Assistant Commissioner expressed concern about the well-founded violations several years after PIPEDA's enactment.

Quick view

Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActWell-founded

Backgrounder: Ticketmaster Investigation

Feb 12, 2008Backgrounder
Adjudicator: Jennifer Stoddart
Plain-Language Summary

The OPC investigated Ticketmaster Canada Limited (TM) following a complaint that its practices for collecting, disclosing, and using customer personal information for marketing purposes did not comply with PIPEDA. The complainant alleged that customers were not properly informed or given a viable alternative to sharing their information for marketing. The Assistant Privacy Commissioner found that TM failed to uphold the principles of openness and consent. TM subsequently revised its privacy policy and online notifications to explicitly communicate information sharing practices and provide clear opt-in options for marketing. The investigation concluded that the issues were resolved satisfactorily, but the Assistant Commissioner expressed concern about the well-founded violations several years after PIPEDA's enactment.

Key Issues
  • Whether Ticketmaster's privacy policy met the openness principle of PIPEDA
  • Whether Ticketmaster obtained valid consent for the use of personal information for marketing purposes
  • Whether customers were properly informed about the use of their personal information for marketing
  • Whether customers were provided a viable opt-in/opt-out option for marketing without penalty
  • Whether Ticketmaster's agreements with event providers ensured compliance with customer preferences
Federal (Canada)Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActWell-founded
Federal (Canada) flag
Nov 7, 2003PIPEDA Case Summary #2003-244Indexed Jun 30, 2026

PIPEDA Case Summary #2003-244 — Telecommunications company "A"

Telecommunications company "A"

An individual complained that a telecommunications company failed to obtain proper consent for the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information for secondary marketing purposes. The complainant alleged that the company did not adequately inform customers of these practices or provide an easy opt-out mechanism. The investigation found that while the company had a privacy policy available online and in booklets, it did not actively bring these practices to the attention of new customers during the service application process. The Assistant Commissioner determined that the company's practices did not meet the reasonable expectations of its customers and thus contravened several PIPEDA principles. The complaint was found to be well-founded, and the Assistant Commissioner recommended that the company draw customers' attention to its privacy policy and options at the time of collection.

Quick view

Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActWell-founded

PIPEDA Case Summary #2003-244 — Telecommunications company "A"

Nov 7, 2003PIPEDA Case Summary #2003-244
Adjudicator: Robert Marleau
Plain-Language Summary

An individual complained that a telecommunications company failed to obtain proper consent for the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information for secondary marketing purposes. The complainant alleged that the company did not adequately inform customers of these practices or provide an easy opt-out mechanism. The investigation found that while the company had a privacy policy available online and in booklets, it did not actively bring these practices to the attention of new customers during the service application process. The Assistant Commissioner determined that the company's practices did not meet the reasonable expectations of its customers and thus contravened several PIPEDA principles. The complaint was found to be well-founded, and the Assistant Commissioner recommended that the company draw customers' attention to its privacy policy and options at the time of collection.

Key Issues
  • Whether the telecommunications company obtained adequate knowledge and consent for secondary marketing purposes under Principle 4.3
  • Whether the company specified identified purposes at or before the time of collection under Principle 4.2.3
  • Whether the company made reasonable efforts to ensure individuals were advised of the purposes for which information would be used, as required by Principle 4.3.2
  • Whether the company's consent practices met the reasonable expectations of the individual under Principle 4.3.5
Federal (Canada)Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActWell-founded
Federal (Canada) flag
Jun 15, 2001Indexed Jun 30, 2026

Letter of finding regarding the video surveillance issue

Centurion Security Services Co. Ltd.

The federal Privacy Commissioner investigated a complaint regarding Centurion Security Services' installation of surveillance cameras at a downtown Yellowknife intersection. The Commissioner found that both live and recorded video images of individuals constitute "personal information" under PIPEDA. Centurion Security Services, a private company, was monitoring public spaces for commercial purposes without the consent of individuals, which contravened Principle 4.3 of Schedule 1 and section 5(1) of the Act. Although the cameras were removed before the complaint was received, the Commissioner concluded that Centurion's intended future public video surveillance for commercial purposes would also be unlawful. The complaint was found to be well-founded.

Quick view

Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActWell-founded

Letter of finding regarding the video surveillance issue

Jun 15, 2001
Adjudicator: George Radwanski
Plain-Language Summary

The federal Privacy Commissioner investigated a complaint regarding Centurion Security Services' installation of surveillance cameras at a downtown Yellowknife intersection. The Commissioner found that both live and recorded video images of individuals constitute "personal information" under PIPEDA. Centurion Security Services, a private company, was monitoring public spaces for commercial purposes without the consent of individuals, which contravened Principle 4.3 of Schedule 1 and section 5(1) of the Act. Although the cameras were removed before the complaint was received, the Commissioner concluded that Centurion's intended future public video surveillance for commercial purposes would also be unlawful. The complaint was found to be well-founded.

Key Issues
  • Whether the subject matter falls within the Commissioner's jurisdiction under PIPEDA
  • Whether live video pictures of individuals constitute "personal information" under section 2 of PIPEDA
  • Whether the collection of personal information was in the course of a commercial activity under section 4 of PIPEDA
  • Whether Centurion Security Services collected personal information without consent in contravention of Principle 4.3 of Schedule 1 of PIPEDA
  • Whether the absence of recording (live feed only) affects the classification of information as personal information or the requirement for consent