The catalogue

Canadian privacy & access decisions

The comprehensive archive of federal, provincial, and territorial commissioner decisions — each with a plain-language summary.

2 decisions matching
Federal (Canada)Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActNo jurisdiction
Federal (Canada) flag
Jul 18, 2016PIPEDA Case Summary #2016-011Indexed Jun 30, 2026

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

A psychiatrist retained by an independent medical evaluation provider

An individual (the plaintiff) filed a complaint after a psychiatrist, retained by an insurance company to assess the plaintiff's well-being for a civil lawsuit, did not provide full access to his personal information. The plaintiff had requested access to his personal information held by the psychiatrist and received only a redacted report, leading to concerns about the completeness and accuracy of the information. The OPC investigated whether the psychiatrist's collection and use of the plaintiff's personal information constituted a "commercial activity" under PIPEDA. The OPC determined that defending against a civil lawsuit is not a commercial activity, and therefore, PIPEDA did not apply. The complaint was ultimately dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.

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

An individual (the plaintiff) filed a complaint after a psychiatrist, retained by an insurance company to assess the plaintiff's well-being for a civil lawsuit, did not provide full access to his personal information. The plaintiff had requested access to his personal information held by the psychiatrist and received only a redacted report, leading to concerns about the completeness and accuracy of the information. The OPC investigated whether the psychiatrist's collection and use of the plaintiff's personal information constituted a "commercial activity" under PIPEDA. The OPC determined that defending against a civil lawsuit is not a commercial activity, and therefore, PIPEDA did not apply. The complaint was ultimately dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.

Key Issues
  • Whether the collection and use of a plaintiff’s personal information for the purpose of defending against a civil lawsuit constitutes a "commercial activity" under PIPEDA
  • Whether PIPEDA applies to the activities of a third-party retained to carry out an activity exempt from PIPEDA
Federal (Canada)Privacy ActNo jurisdiction
Federal (Canada) flag
Mar 4, 2014Indexed Jun 30, 2026

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

Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP)

The complainant alleged that the RCMP continued to retain and use personal information from the national long-gun registry, which should have been destroyed under the Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act. Specific allegations included a High River RCMP member's statement about locating firearms and an email from a Langley RCMP member referring to non-restricted firearm registration. The RCMP stated that electronic records were destroyed in October 2012 and hard copies by December 2013 (except for Quebec records). They also argued that information extracted from the registry before its destruction and retained in case files could be used consistent with its original purpose. The OPC found no evidence of contravention, noting that recent legislative amendments retroactively excluded the application of the Privacy Act to certain long-gun registry records, preventing further investigation into specific examples.

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

The complainant alleged that the RCMP continued to retain and use personal information from the national long-gun registry, which should have been destroyed under the Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act. Specific allegations included a High River RCMP member's statement about locating firearms and an email from a Langley RCMP member referring to non-restricted firearm registration. The RCMP stated that electronic records were destroyed in October 2012 and hard copies by December 2013 (except for Quebec records). They also argued that information extracted from the registry before its destruction and retained in case files could be used consistent with its original purpose. The OPC found no evidence of contravention, noting that recent legislative amendments retroactively excluded the application of the Privacy Act to certain long-gun registry records, preventing further investigation into specific examples.

Key Issues
  • Whether the RCMP continued to retain and use personal information from the national long-gun registry after it was required to be destroyed
  • Whether the High River RCMP used personal information from the long-gun registry in June 2013
  • Whether other RCMP detachments continued to use personal information from the long-gun registry after electronic records were destroyed in October 2012
  • Whether copies of the long-gun registry containing personal information still exist in the possession of the RCMP or other police services
  • Whether the use of personal information from the long-gun registry, retained in case files prior to the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, is consistent with section 7 of the Privacy Act
  • Whether the retroactive exclusion of the Privacy Act by Bill C-59 affects the investigation