Federal (Canada) Privacy Decisions

The complainant discovered that his financial institution had disclosed his Registered Education Savings Plan (RESP) account information dating back to 1999 to the police. The OPC found that while production orders allow disclosure of information, the financial institution disclosed documents beyond the scope of the specific production order and did not have valid consent. The institution agreed to review its procedures and provide training to staff regarding disclosures pursuant to production orders.

• Disclosure of personal information beyond the scope of a production order
• Validity of consent based on a general privacy policy for law enforcement disclosures
• Sensitivity of financial information

The complainant alleged that the respondent's property history reports included personal information without adequate consent. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) found that insurance claims data, as described in this case, was not personal information about an individual. However, information about drug activity at a property was deemed personal information. The respondent agreed to cease including drug activity details in its reports, leading the OPC to find the complaint well-founded and resolved.

• Whether drug activity information in property reports constitutes personal information.
• Whether drug activity information is publicly available under PIPEDA Regulations.
• Whether consent was adequately obtained for the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information.

A complainant alleged that a financial institution refused to provide access to personal information related to a disputed credit card transaction. The institution initially claimed the information was confidential commercial information under PIPEDA. While the OPC found the institution's initial claim of exemption was unfounded, it later determined that the redacted information was not the complainant's personal information, but related to third parties. The OPC concluded the complaint was well-founded due to the delay and improper initial claim, but resolved as the complainant ultimately received access to his entitled personal information.

• Whether the financial institution properly withheld personal information under the confidential commercial information exemption (PIPEDA s. 9(3)(b)).
• Whether the financial institution responded to the access request within the time limits prescribed by PIPEDA.
• Whether the withheld information constituted the complainant's personal information or third-party information.
• Whether the complainant received appropriate access to personal information concerning a disputed credit card transaction.