Canadian Privacy Decisions

The complainant alleged that a telecommunications company's response to her access request was incomplete, specifically regarding disclosures of her personal information to third parties, including law enforcement. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner found that the company's standard response did not meet its obligations under Principle 4.9 of PIPEDA. The company has since provided a direct response to the complainant and has amended its policy to ensure compliance with access to information requests.

• Adequacy of response to an access request concerning disclosure of personal information.
• Compliance with PIPEDA Principle 4.9 regarding informing individuals of disclosures.
• Application of PIPEDA subsections 9(2.1) to 9(2.4) concerning disclosures to government institutions.
• Obligations regarding disclosures to third parties beyond government institutions.

An individual complained to the OPC after receiving a credit report containing unrecognized inquiries and a notation of an "AUTOMATIC COMBINE" of accounts, which merged his file with that of another individual. The OPC found that while there was no unauthorized use or disclosure of personal information, the credit reporting agency failed to maintain the accuracy of the complainant's information when it merged the files. The agency took corrective actions, including separating the files and notifying creditors of the corrections.

• Accuracy of personal information when merging files
• Unauthorized use or disclosure of personal information

An individual complained that a retailer's salesperson signed him up for a credit card without his knowledge or consent, and that a bank subsequently conducted a credit check using inaccurate information. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) found that the bank failed to demonstrate it obtained the complainant's consent for the credit check and that the collected information was sufficiently accurate. The bank apologized, cancelled the credit card, and removed the inquiry from the complainant's file. The bank also discontinued its pilot program for in-store credit applications.

• Adequacy of consent for a credit card application and credit check
• Accuracy of personal information collected
• Adequacy of procedures for collecting personal information and obtaining consent

An individual complained that his employer, an international trucking company, disclosed his positive drug test results to a provincial workers' compensation board (WCB) without his consent. The company claimed it was legally obligated to do so. The OPC found the disclosure was a contravention of PIPEDA as the company's belief of a legal obligation was inaccurate, and the WCB did not require the information. The complaint regarding disclosure to co-workers was not substantiated. The company implemented the OPC's recommendations, leading to the complaint being resolved.

• Whether disclosure of drug test results to WCB required consent
• Whether disclosure to WCB was a legal obligation under PIPEDA s. 7(3)(i)
• Whether drug test results were disclosed to co-workers
• Whether the company's random drug testing program violated PIPEDA

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada investigated a complaint regarding a property management company maintaining a "bad tenant" list for a landlord association. The complainant alleged improper collection, use, and disclosure of personal information without consent. The OPC found that the list functioned like a credit reporting agency and that consent was not properly obtained, nor was there a mechanism for individuals to challenge the accuracy of the information. The property management company agreed to destroy the list and cease its collection, leading to the matter being resolved.

• Adequacy of consent for collecting and using tenant information.
• Whether the "bad tenant" list functioned as a credit reporting agency.
• Ensuring the accuracy of personal information and the ability for individuals to challenge it.
• Appropriateness of the purpose for collecting, using, and disclosing tenant information.

The complainant alleged an insurance company refused to provide her with access to her personal information, including a recording of a telephone conversation, and documents related to her complaint to the company's ombudsman office. The company claimed the ombudsman process was a "formal dispute resolution process" exempt from PIPEDA and that the process was not a "commercial activity." The OPC found the company contravened PIPEDA by unduly delaying access to the recorded conversation and by incorrectly withholding documents from the ombudsman process. The OPC determined the ombudsman office was not a "formal dispute resolution process" and its activities were subject to PIPEDA.

• Is an internal ombudsman office a "formal dispute resolution process" under PIPEDA?
• Are the services of an internal ombudsman office considered "commercial activity" under PIPEDA?
• Does an organization need spousal consent to release joint account information when third-party information can be severed?
• What are the obligations of an organization responding to an access to information request under PIPEDA?

An individual complained that a collection agency refused to provide access to their personal information, despite multiple written requests. The agency failed to respond to several of these requests within the timeframes required by PIPEDA. Although the agency eventually sent the information, and the individual refused to sign for it, the agency was deemed to have provided access. The agency acknowledged it did not follow its own procedures for handling access requests and committed to revising them and providing refresher training.

• Timeliness of response to access requests
• Failure to follow internal procedures for handling access requests
• Adequacy of providing access to personal information

A customer complained that a retail store employee disclosed his personal information, including his name and in-store behaviour, to his employer without his knowledge or consent. The Office found that the disclosed information was personal information and that the store could not rely on implied consent for the disclosure, as the information was sensitive and disclosure to an employer was not a reasonable expectation. The matter was resolved after the store implemented recommendations to communicate its PIPEDA obligations.

• Whether information disclosed in a public store is personal information.
• Whether implied consent applied to the disclosure of sensitive personal information to an employer.
• Whether the disclosed information qualified as publicly available information under the regulations.