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 ActNot well-founded
Nov 2, 2017PIPEDA Report of Findings #2017-009· Indexed Apr 12, 2026

PIPEDA Report of Findings #2017-009: Airline relies on access exemption to refuse traveler’s access to their personal information

An airline

A traveler complained that an airline did not provide complete access to his personal information, specifically documents and correspondence related to being denied boarding. The airline relied on exemptions under PIPEDA, arguing that the information was collected to investigate a potential breach of agreement or contravention of law and was disclosed to a government institution for law enforcement purposes. The OPC found that both the collection and disclosure were reasonable under the Act's exemptions, and the airline properly followed the process when a government institution objected to disclosure of the information.

Quick View

Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActNot well-founded

PIPEDA Report of Findings #2017-009: Airline relies on access exemption to refuse traveler’s access to their personal information

Nov 2, 2017PIPEDA Report of Findings #2017-009
Adjudicator: Daniel Therrien
Plain-Language Summary

A traveler complained that an airline did not provide complete access to his personal information, specifically documents and correspondence related to being denied boarding. The airline relied on exemptions under PIPEDA, arguing that the information was collected to investigate a potential breach of agreement or contravention of law and was disclosed to a government institution for law enforcement purposes. The OPC found that both the collection and disclosure were reasonable under the Act's exemptions, and the airline properly followed the process when a government institution objected to disclosure of the information.

Key Issues
  • Whether the collection of personal information without consent was justified under PIPEDA's exemptions.
  • Whether the disclosure of personal information to a government institution was justified under PIPEDA's exemptions.
  • Whether the airline properly handled the access request when a government institution objected to disclosure.
Federal (Canada)Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActNot well-founded
Jan 11, 2017PIPEDA Case Summary #2017-004· Indexed Apr 12, 2026

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

A medical doctor

The complainant alleged that a doctor used and disclosed his personal information without consent during an insurance claim evaluation. The investigation focused on whether the complainant's consent, provided through accident benefit application forms (OCF-1 and OCF-19), extended to this specific doctor hired to prepare a summary report. The Office determined that the consent forms explicitly allowed the insurance company and other parties, including health professionals, to collect, use, and disclose personal information for the purposes of investigating and processing the insurance claim, including assessing catastrophic impairment. Therefore, the doctor did not contravene PIPEDA's consent provisions.

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

The complainant alleged that a doctor used and disclosed his personal information without consent during an insurance claim evaluation. The investigation focused on whether the complainant's consent, provided through accident benefit application forms (OCF-1 and OCF-19), extended to this specific doctor hired to prepare a summary report. The Office determined that the consent forms explicitly allowed the insurance company and other parties, including health professionals, to collect, use, and disclose personal information for the purposes of investigating and processing the insurance claim, including assessing catastrophic impairment. Therefore, the doctor did not contravene PIPEDA's consent provisions.

Key Issues
  • Whether consent provided for an insurance claim extended to a third-party doctor hired to prepare a summary report.
  • Whether the specific wording of consent forms (OCF-1 and OCF-19) covered the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information by the doctor.
  • Whether the doctor collected, used, or disclosed personal information for purposes beyond those stated in the consent forms.