Federal (Canada) Privacy Decisions

An individual complained that a sports facilities company disclosed his personal information regarding an outstanding debt to a related sports association on two occasions without his consent. The company argued that PIPEDA did not apply because it answered a direct question and there was an expectation of privacy. The OPC found that disclosing debt information is sensitive and requires consent unless a specific exemption applies. As the disclosures were not for the purpose of collecting the debt, the exemption in subsection 7(3)(b) of PIPEDA did not apply, making the complaint well-founded.

• Was the disclosure of an outstanding debt considered personal information?
• Did the disclosure of debt information fall under the exemption for debt collection purposes?
• Does an 'expectation of privacy' or answering a direct question exempt an organization from obtaining consent for disclosure?
• Did the company obtain the individual's knowledge and consent for the disclosure of his debt information?

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC) investigated two complaints against the Parole Board of Canada (PBC) concerning access to record suspension information. The OPC found that the PBC improperly refused to process access requests submitted by a third-party screening company and also improperly required requesters to provide excessive identification information. The OPC concluded that the PBC's reliance on paragraph 22(1)(b) of the Privacy Act was not justified in most cases, and its identification requirements went beyond what was necessary.

• Can a requester ask to confirm that no personal information exists?
• Is paragraph 22(1)(b) of the Privacy Act properly applied to refuse access requests for record suspension information?
• Are the PBC's identification requirements for processing requests excessive?

The OPC investigated two complaints regarding the Canada Border Services Agency's (CBSA) participation in the TV show "Border Security: Canada's Front Line". The investigation focused on a complaint filed by the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association on behalf of an individual filmed during a CBSA enforcement activity. The OPC found that the CBSA's participation and disclosure of personal information to the production company, Force Four, violated sections 4 and 8 of the Privacy Act due to issues with informed consent and improper disclosure of information. The OPC recommended the CBSA cease its participation in the TV program, which the CBSA accepted.

• Validity of consent obtained for filming and disclosure of personal information
• CBSA's ability to contract out of Privacy Act obligations
• Adequacy of facial blurring to protect identity
• Disclosure of information about an intended subject prior to filming