BreachOfPrivacy
Decisions/Federal (Canada)

Federal (Canada) Privacy Decisions

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

17 decisions matching
Federal (Canada)Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActEarly-resolved
Mar 12, 2015PIPEDA findings #2015-020· Indexed Apr 12, 2026

PIPEDA findings #2015-020: Hotel chain alerts its clients about “special offer” telephone scam

A hotel chain

A complainant was concerned that a hotel chain linked her IP address to her phone number after she received a promotional phone call. The hotel chain clarified that it does not engage in promotional calls and that the call was a fraudulent telemarketing scam by an unrelated party. The complainant suggested the hotel warn its customers about such scams, which the hotel did, leading to the matter being resolved.

Quick View

Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActEarly-resolved

PIPEDA findings #2015-020: Hotel chain alerts its clients about “special offer” telephone scam

Mar 12, 2015PIPEDA findings #2015-020
Plain-Language Summary

A complainant was concerned that a hotel chain linked her IP address to her phone number after she received a promotional phone call. The hotel chain clarified that it does not engage in promotional calls and that the call was a fraudulent telemarketing scam by an unrelated party. The complainant suggested the hotel warn its customers about such scams, which the hotel did, leading to the matter being resolved.

Key Issues
  • Unauthorized collection of personal information
  • Misrepresentation by a third party
  • Complainant's concern about IP address linkage to phone number
Federal (Canada)Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActEarly-resolved
Jan 21, 2015Early resolved case summary #2015-03· Indexed Apr 12, 2026

Early resolved case summary #2015-03: Office building tenant reconsiders placement of video surveillance cameras

An office building management company

A tenant complained about five video surveillance cameras installed in common areas of their office building by another tenant. The complainant was particularly concerned about two cameras that monitored activity near his office door and the elevators, viewing it as an invasion of privacy. Following the OPC's involvement, the cameras of most concern were relocated inside the other tenant's offices, resolving the complainant's privacy concerns.

Quick View

Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActEarly-resolved

Early resolved case summary #2015-03: Office building tenant reconsiders placement of video surveillance cameras

Jan 21, 2015Early resolved case summary #2015-03
Plain-Language Summary

A tenant complained about five video surveillance cameras installed in common areas of their office building by another tenant. The complainant was particularly concerned about two cameras that monitored activity near his office door and the elevators, viewing it as an invasion of privacy. Following the OPC's involvement, the cameras of most concern were relocated inside the other tenant's offices, resolving the complainant's privacy concerns.

Key Issues
  • Appropriateness of video surveillance in common areas
  • Collection of personal information in shared spaces
  • Minimum collection principle for video surveillance