Canadian Privacy Decisions

This investigation concerned complaints against the CBC for disclosing details of a privacy breach at the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), where taxpayer information was inadvertently sent to a CBC journalist. The CBC subsequently published an article containing some of this information, including names and photos of affected individuals. However, the OPC found that the Privacy Act does not apply to personal information collected, used, or disclosed by the CBC for journalistic purposes. Therefore, the complaints were deemed not well-founded as the information was excluded from the Act's application.

• Whether the CBC contravened the Privacy Act by disclosing personal information obtained from a privacy breach at the CRA.
• Whether section 69.1 of the Privacy Act, which excludes journalistic purposes from the Act's application, applied to the CBC's actions.
• Whether the CBC's use and disclosure of the personal information was for purely journalistic purposes.

A complainant alleged that his Internet Service Provider (ISP) disclosed his personal information without consent to a newspaper columnist who was assisting him with a service dispute. The ISP argued it had implied consent due to the complainant's actions. The OPC found that the complainant's familiarity with the columnist and his own disclosure of information in his email to the columnist created a reasonable expectation that his information might be shared to resolve the dispute. The disclosed information was also found to be relevant and not sensitive.

• Was there implied consent for the disclosure of personal information to a columnist assisting with a dispute?
• Was the disclosed information relevant to the complaint?
• Was the disclosed information sensitive?

A staff relations representative complained that the RCMP's disclosure of informal disciplinary records to the Crown was inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s McNeil decision. The complainant argued that only records from formal disciplinary hearings should be disclosed. The OPC agreed with the RCMP that all disciplinary records, informal or formal, may need to be disclosed if relevant to court proceedings. While the complaint was found not well-founded, the OPC recommended the RCMP reconsider its policy of retaining disciplinary records until members reach 100 years of age, which is significantly longer than other police services.

• Disclosure of informal disciplinary records to the Crown in light of the McNeil decision
• Relevance determination for disclosure of disciplinary records
• Retention period for RCMP disciplinary records

This investigation concerned a complaint that the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) violated the Privacy Act by requiring border services officers (BSOs) to wear name tags displaying their surnames. Complainants argued this was an unreasonable invasion of privacy and exposed them to potential harm. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) found that while the names were personal information, they fell under an exception in the Privacy Act relating to information about an individual's position or functions within a government institution. Therefore, the requirement to display surnames on name tags did not violate the Act.

• Whether displaying surnames on name tags constitutes personal information under the Privacy Act.
• Whether displaying surnames on name tags is an unreasonable invasion of privacy.
• Whether the requirement to display surnames on name tags violates the use and disclosure provisions of the Privacy Act.
• Whether the exception for information relating to an individual's position or functions applies to surnames on name tags.

A customer complained that his investment firm's Know Your Client (KYC) form required an unreasonable amount of personal information, contrary to PIPEDA. The firm argued the information was necessary to comply with regulatory obligations set by the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC). The OPC investigated whether the firm collected more information than necessary for legitimate purposes. Ultimately, the OPC found that the firm's collection of detailed financial and personal information, including spousal income and investment experience, was justified to meet IIROC's KYC and suitability requirements.

• Whether the investment firm explicitly specified the purposes for collecting personal information.
• Whether the stated purposes for collection were legitimate.
• Whether the firm collected more personal information than necessary to fulfill those purposes.
• Whether the collection was a condition of service that violated PIPEDA.