BreachOfPrivacy

Canadian Privacy Decisions

The comprehensive archive of Canadian privacy decisions from federal, provincial, and territorial commissioners — with AI-summarized plain-language summaries for every decision.

2 decisions matching
Federal (Canada)Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActNo jurisdiction
Jul 18, 2016PIPEDA Case Summary #2016-011· Indexed Apr 12, 2026

PIPEDA Case Summary #2016-011: Defending against a civil lawsuit not considered a commercial activity

A psychiatrist

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) investigated a complaint regarding a psychiatrist's handling of a patient's personal information. The patient had requested access to his information following a medical assessment conducted as part of a civil lawsuit defence. However, the OPC determined that the psychiatrist's activities were not commercial in nature but were for the purpose of defending a lawsuit. As PIPEDA only applies to commercial activities, the OPC concluded it lacked jurisdiction to investigate the complaint.

Quick View

Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActNo jurisdiction

PIPEDA Case Summary #2016-011: Defending against a civil lawsuit not considered a commercial activity

Jul 18, 2016PIPEDA Case Summary #2016-011
Adjudicator: Daniel Therrien
Plain-Language Summary

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) investigated a complaint regarding a psychiatrist's handling of a patient's personal information. The patient had requested access to his information following a medical assessment conducted as part of a civil lawsuit defence. However, the OPC determined that the psychiatrist's activities were not commercial in nature but were for the purpose of defending a lawsuit. As PIPEDA only applies to commercial activities, the OPC concluded it lacked jurisdiction to investigate the complaint.

Key Issues
  • Whether the collection and use of personal information for the purpose of defending a civil lawsuit constitutes a commercial activity under PIPEDA.
  • Whether the OPC has jurisdiction to investigate complaints falling outside the scope of PIPEDA.
  • The application of the 'commercial activity' exemption in PIPEDA.
Federal (Canada)Privacy ActNo jurisdiction
Mar 4, 2014· Indexed Apr 12, 2026

Retroactive removal of Privacy Act provisions leaves gun registry complainant with no recourse - 2015

Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP)

A complainant alleged that the RCMP continued to retain and use personal information from the long-gun registry after it was legally required to be destroyed. The investigation focused on whether the RCMP used this information in contravention of section 7 of the Privacy Act. While the RCMP provided evidence that the registry records were destroyed, the complainant pointed to instances suggesting otherwise. However, the OPC could not find evidence to support the allegation that the RCMP used deleted long-gun registry information and noted that subsequent legislation retroactively exempted certain information from the Privacy Act.

Quick View

Privacy ActNo jurisdiction

Retroactive removal of Privacy Act provisions leaves gun registry complainant with no recourse - 2015

Mar 4, 2014
Adjudicator: Chantal Bernier
Plain-Language Summary

A complainant alleged that the RCMP continued to retain and use personal information from the long-gun registry after it was legally required to be destroyed. The investigation focused on whether the RCMP used this information in contravention of section 7 of the Privacy Act. While the RCMP provided evidence that the registry records were destroyed, the complainant pointed to instances suggesting otherwise. However, the OPC could not find evidence to support the allegation that the RCMP used deleted long-gun registry information and noted that subsequent legislation retroactively exempted certain information from the Privacy Act.

Key Issues
  • Whether the RCMP retained and used personal information from the long-gun registry after it was legally required to be destroyed.
  • Whether the alleged use of this information contravened section 7 of the Privacy Act.
  • The impact of retroactive legislative amendments on the investigation and the application of the Privacy Act.