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)Privacy ActWell-founded & resolved
Oct 30, 2014· Indexed Apr 12, 2026

Lost USB key from Employment and Social Development Canada reinforces lessons learned

Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) and Justice Canada

This report details an investigation into the loss of a USB key containing the personal information of 5,045 Canada Pension Plan Disability appellants. The investigation found that both Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) and Justice Canada failed to adequately translate their privacy and security policies into practice, leading to weaknesses in physical, technological, administrative, and personnel controls. Both departments accepted nine recommendations to improve data protection, many of which were similar to those made in a previous investigation involving ESDC.

Quick View

Privacy ActWell-founded & resolved

Lost USB key from Employment and Social Development Canada reinforces lessons learned

Oct 30, 2014
Adjudicator: Daniel Therrien
Plain-Language Summary

This report details an investigation into the loss of a USB key containing the personal information of 5,045 Canada Pension Plan Disability appellants. The investigation found that both Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) and Justice Canada failed to adequately translate their privacy and security policies into practice, leading to weaknesses in physical, technological, administrative, and personnel controls. Both departments accepted nine recommendations to improve data protection, many of which were similar to those made in a previous investigation involving ESDC.

Key Issues
  • Adequacy of physical, technological, administrative, and personnel security controls
  • Failure to translate privacy and security policies into meaningful business practices
  • Protection of sensitive personal information including SIN and medical details
  • Custody and storage of portable electronic devices containing personal information
Federal (Canada)Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActWell-founded & resolved
May 22, 2014PIPEDA findings #2014-020· Indexed Apr 12, 2026

PIPEDA findings #2014-020: Videographer posts client’s wedding video on social media without consent

A videographer

An individual complained that a videographer hired to record her wedding shared her personal information without consent by posting the wedding video online for business promotion. The OPC found that using the video for promotional purposes was a commercial activity requiring consent, which the videographer had not obtained. Although the videographer initially disputed this, they eventually removed the video and agreed to include consent provisions in future contracts, leading to the complaint being resolved.

Quick View

Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActWell-founded & resolved

PIPEDA findings #2014-020: Videographer posts client’s wedding video on social media without consent

May 22, 2014PIPEDA findings #2014-020
Adjudicator: Chantal Bernier
Plain-Language Summary

An individual complained that a videographer hired to record her wedding shared her personal information without consent by posting the wedding video online for business promotion. The OPC found that using the video for promotional purposes was a commercial activity requiring consent, which the videographer had not obtained. Although the videographer initially disputed this, they eventually removed the video and agreed to include consent provisions in future contracts, leading to the complaint being resolved.

Key Issues
  • Was the use of the wedding video for promotional purposes considered a commercial activity under PIPEDA?
  • Did the videographer obtain the complainant's informed consent for the use of her personal information?
  • Did any exemptions under PIPEDA apply to the videographer's use of the video without consent?