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.

16 decisions matching
Federal (Canada)Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActNot well-founded
Federal (Canada) flag
Jan 11, 2017PIPEDA Case Summary #2017-004Indexed Jun 30, 2026

PIPEDA Case Summary #2017-004: Consent provided extends to third-party doctor hired to evaluate accident insurance claim

A doctor hired by an independent medical evaluation firm

An individual complained that a doctor collected, used, and disclosed his personal information without consent. The complainant had been in a car accident and his insurance company hired an independent medical evaluation (IME) firm to assess his claim for catastrophic impairment. The doctor in question was hired by the IME firm to compile a summary report based on assessments from other doctors. The complainant argued he had not consented to this specific doctor, though he had consented to other doctors involved in his claim. The doctor contended that the complainant had provided consent through signed accident benefit forms (OCF-1 and OCF-19). The OPC found that the signed forms included explicit consent for health professionals to collect, use, and disclose personal information for the purpose of investigating and processing the insurance claim. The OPC concluded that the doctor's actions were within the scope of the consent provided.

Quick view

Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActNot well-founded

PIPEDA Case Summary #2017-004: Consent provided extends to third-party doctor hired to evaluate accident insurance claim

Jan 11, 2017PIPEDA Case Summary #2017-004
Adjudicator: Daniel Therrien
Plain-Language Summary

An individual complained that a doctor collected, used, and disclosed his personal information without consent. The complainant had been in a car accident and his insurance company hired an independent medical evaluation (IME) firm to assess his claim for catastrophic impairment. The doctor in question was hired by the IME firm to compile a summary report based on assessments from other doctors. The complainant argued he had not consented to this specific doctor, though he had consented to other doctors involved in his claim. The doctor contended that the complainant had provided consent through signed accident benefit forms (OCF-1 and OCF-19). The OPC found that the signed forms included explicit consent for health professionals to collect, use, and disclose personal information for the purpose of investigating and processing the insurance claim. The OPC concluded that the doctor's actions were within the scope of the consent provided.

Key Issues
  • Whether the doctor collected, used, and disclosed the complainant's personal information without consent
  • Whether the consent provided in OCF-1 and OCF-19 forms extended to the doctor preparing the summary report