BreachOfPrivacy
Decisions/Federal (Canada)

Federal (Canada) Privacy Decisions

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

5 decisions matching
Federal (Canada)Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActWell-founded & conditionally resolved
Dec 14, 2020PIPEDA Findings #2020-005· Indexed Apr 12, 2026

PIPEDA Findings #2020-005: Investigation into Desjardins’ compliance with PIPEDA following a breach of personal information between 2017 and 2019

Desjardins

This investigation examined Desjardins' compliance with PIPEDA following a significant data breach that occurred between 2017 and 2019, affecting nearly 9.7 million individuals. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) found that Desjardins contravened PIPEDA principles regarding accountability, data retention, and security safeguards. While Desjardins' mitigation measures for affected individuals were deemed adequate, the OPC issued recommendations to address the identified contraventions.

Quick View

Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActWell-founded & conditionally resolved

PIPEDA Findings #2020-005: Investigation into Desjardins’ compliance with PIPEDA following a breach of personal information between 2017 and 2019

Dec 14, 2020PIPEDA Findings #2020-005
Adjudicator: Daniel Therrien
Plain-Language Summary

This investigation examined Desjardins' compliance with PIPEDA following a significant data breach that occurred between 2017 and 2019, affecting nearly 9.7 million individuals. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) found that Desjardins contravened PIPEDA principles regarding accountability, data retention, and security safeguards. While Desjardins' mitigation measures for affected individuals were deemed adequate, the OPC issued recommendations to address the identified contraventions.

Key Issues
  • Adequacy of security safeguards throughout the personal information lifecycle.
  • Compliance with accountability principles, including implementing procedures and training staff.
  • Appropriateness of data retention and destruction practices.
  • Effectiveness of mitigation measures offered to individuals affected by the breach.
Federal (Canada)Privacy ActWell-founded & conditionally resolved
Aug 7, 2020· Indexed Apr 12, 2026

PA-048557, PA-048561 — Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA)

Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA)

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) investigated a complaint against CATSA concerning its practice of notifying police when cannabis was found in a traveller's possession. The OPC found that CATSA's collection and disclosure of personal information for this purpose contravened sections 4 and 8 of the Privacy Act, as its mandate is focused on aviation security, not general law enforcement. While CATSA agreed to cease collecting and disclosing such information when the cannabis possession is not clearly illegal, the record-keeping aspect of the complaint was found not well-founded.

Quick View

Privacy ActWell-founded & conditionally resolved

PA-048557, PA-048561 — Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA)

Aug 7, 2020
Adjudicator: Daniel Therrien
Plain-Language Summary

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) investigated a complaint against CATSA concerning its practice of notifying police when cannabis was found in a traveller's possession. The OPC found that CATSA's collection and disclosure of personal information for this purpose contravened sections 4 and 8 of the Privacy Act, as its mandate is focused on aviation security, not general law enforcement. While CATSA agreed to cease collecting and disclosing such information when the cannabis possession is not clearly illegal, the record-keeping aspect of the complaint was found not well-founded.

Key Issues
  • Whether CATSA's collection of personal information from travellers possessing cannabis was consistent with its mandate under the Privacy Act.
  • Whether CATSA's disclosure of personal information to police regarding cannabis possession was consistent with the Privacy Act.
  • Whether CATSA's record retention practices for this information complied with the Privacy Act.
Federal (Canada)Privacy ActWell-founded & conditionally resolved
Aug 7, 2020· Indexed Apr 12, 2026

RCMP contravened the Act by using certain types of non-conviction information for vulnerable sector checks without consent

Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP)

Three individuals complained that the RCMP used non-conviction information in vulnerable sector (VS) checks without their informed consent. The OPC found that the RCMP contravened the Privacy Act in two of the three cases because the consent forms did not clearly explain what types of non-conviction information would be reported. The OPC also determined that the RCMP's policy of broadly reporting non-conviction information, including mental health incidents, was not proportional or minimally intrusive. The RCMP agreed to revise its consent forms and policies.

Quick View

Privacy ActWell-founded & conditionally resolved

RCMP contravened the Act by using certain types of non-conviction information for vulnerable sector checks without consent

Aug 7, 2020
Adjudicator: Daniel Therrien
Plain-Language Summary

Three individuals complained that the RCMP used non-conviction information in vulnerable sector (VS) checks without their informed consent. The OPC found that the RCMP contravened the Privacy Act in two of the three cases because the consent forms did not clearly explain what types of non-conviction information would be reported. The OPC also determined that the RCMP's policy of broadly reporting non-conviction information, including mental health incidents, was not proportional or minimally intrusive. The RCMP agreed to revise its consent forms and policies.

Key Issues
  • Adequacy of informed consent for the use of non-conviction information in vulnerable sector checks.
  • Proportionality and minimal intrusiveness of reporting non-conviction information, including mental health incidents, in vulnerable sector checks.
  • Compliance with record retention requirements under the Privacy Act.
  • Consistency of RCMP policies and practices across different provinces.
Federal (Canada)Privacy ActWell-founded & conditionally resolved
Aug 7, 2020· Indexed Apr 12, 2026

Review of passport protection practices of four federal institutions

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)

This report details a review of passport protection practices by four federal institutions: IRCC, ESDC, GAC, and CPC. While the institutions generally had reasonable measures to prevent unauthorized passport disclosures, the review identified areas for improvement in incident detection, remediation for affected individuals, and learning from past breaches. The institutions agreed to implement the OPC's recommendations to enhance these processes.

Quick View

Privacy ActWell-founded & conditionally resolved

Review of passport protection practices of four federal institutions

Aug 7, 2020
Adjudicator: Daniel Therrien
Plain-Language Summary

This report details a review of passport protection practices by four federal institutions: IRCC, ESDC, GAC, and CPC. While the institutions generally had reasonable measures to prevent unauthorized passport disclosures, the review identified areas for improvement in incident detection, remediation for affected individuals, and learning from past breaches. The institutions agreed to implement the OPC's recommendations to enhance these processes.

Key Issues
  • Adequacy of measures to prevent unauthorized disclosure of passports
  • Effectiveness of incident detection mechanisms
  • Sufficiency of remediation measures for affected individuals
  • Processes for learning from past passport breach incidents
Federal (Canada)Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActWell-founded & conditionally resolved
Jun 30, 2020PIPEDA Findings #2020-002· Indexed Apr 12, 2026

PIPEDA Findings #2020-002: Health practitioner ratings site ceases charging for rating takedowns, a PIPEDA “no-go-zone”

RateMDs.com

A dentist complained that RateMDs.com, a health practitioner rating website, used her personal information without consent and for lucrative purposes. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) found that the dentist's business contact information was publicly available and did not require consent. However, the OPC found that RateMDs.com engaged in an inappropriate practice by charging a subscription fee for a service that allowed users to hide certain reviews, contravening PIPEDA's purpose provisions. RateMDs.com agreed to cease this practice, leading to a conditionally resolved outcome for that issue. The OPC also found RateMDs.com resolved issues related to openness regarding its policies on correcting inaccurate information.

Quick View

Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActWell-founded & conditionally resolved

PIPEDA Findings #2020-002: Health practitioner ratings site ceases charging for rating takedowns, a PIPEDA “no-go-zone”

Jun 30, 2020PIPEDA Findings #2020-002
Adjudicator: Daniel Therrien
Plain-Language Summary

A dentist complained that RateMDs.com, a health practitioner rating website, used her personal information without consent and for lucrative purposes. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) found that the dentist's business contact information was publicly available and did not require consent. However, the OPC found that RateMDs.com engaged in an inappropriate practice by charging a subscription fee for a service that allowed users to hide certain reviews, contravening PIPEDA's purpose provisions. RateMDs.com agreed to cease this practice, leading to a conditionally resolved outcome for that issue. The OPC also found RateMDs.com resolved issues related to openness regarding its policies on correcting inaccurate information.

Key Issues
  • Consent for the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information.
  • The appropriateness of using personal information for a business model.
  • Transparency and openness regarding policies for correcting inaccurate information.
  • The balance between privacy rights and public interest in online reviews.