Canadian Privacy Decisions

The complainant alleged that his employer disclosed detailed personal information about his absence from the workplace to other employees. The organization used an electronic scheduling program that allowed all employees to view the reasons for colleagues' absences. The OPC found that this disclosure constituted a contravention of PIPEDA, as the organization's purposes were not appropriate and less privacy-intrusive means were available to manage employee schedules and shift exchanges. The organization committed to removing the detailed leave information from its systems.

• Appropriate purposes for disclosure of personal information
• Balancing employee privacy with operational needs
• Necessity of disclosing reasons for absence
• Interpretation of collective agreement obligations

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?

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) investigated a complaint regarding an equipment store's policy of photocopying customers' driver's licences as a condition of renting equipment. The OPC advised the store that driver's licences contain excessive personal information and have minimal value in theft investigations. As a result of the OPC's involvement, the store discontinued the practice and implemented a less privacy-invasive solution, resolving the complaint to the complainant's satisfaction.

• Appropriateness of collecting driver's licence information for theft prevention.
• Necessity of photocopying driver's licences for equipment rentals.
• Compliance with principles of minimal information collection.

The complainant settled a legal dispute with a retailer by signing a mutual release, which included releasing the retailer from all past, present, and future claims and complaints. Subsequently, the complainant filed a privacy complaint alleging the retailer failed to provide access to her personal information. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) discontinued the investigation, finding the complaint was made in bad faith because the complainant had already released the retailer from such claims.

• Whether the complaint was made in bad faith
• The effect of a mutual release on a privacy complaint

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.

• 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?

The complainant alleged that Apple Canada Inc. ("Apple") unnecessarily required payment information and date of birth for downloading a free application. The investigation found that while the date of birth collection was acceptable for authentication, Apple's privacy policy did not fully identify the purposes for its collection. The collection of payment information was also found to be an issue, as Apple did not clearly communicate that it was not required for downloading free applications. Apple agreed to revise its privacy policy and implement recommendations to improve clarity and user experience.

• Identification of purposes for collection of personal information
• Limiting collection of personal information to what is necessary
• Openness about information management policies and practices
• Requirement of payment information for free application downloads

A life insurance company discovered a potential breach of personal information when a new envelope design exposed sensitive data, including SINs, of 53 pension plan members. The company took prompt action by notifying affected individuals, offering credit monitoring services, and implementing new security measures to prevent recurrence. The OPC noted the company's response demonstrated best practices in handling such incidents.

• Potential exposure of sensitive personal information (SIN, date of birth, beneficiary information) due to envelope design.
• Adequacy of the company's response to the potential breach.
• Measures taken to prevent future incidents.

An individual complained that her bank required her to provide the last six digits of her Social Insurance Number (SIN) to set up a verified credit account for online purchases. The complainant believed this collection was unnecessary and sought an alternative. The bank initially maintained its practice but, after being informed of a similar OPC finding regarding transparency, discontinued the practice and updated its website to remove this authentication method. The complaint was resolved.

• Bank's collection of partial SIN for account verification
• Transparency of alternative authentication methods
• Adequacy of information provided on the bank's website

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.

An individual complained to the OPC after an internet search engine continued to display her résumé and personal information, even after she had it removed from the original job posting site. The search engine initially did not comply with her requests to remove the information. The OPC intervened, and the search engine subsequently removed the cached copy of the information using its URL removal tool.

• Right to withdraw consent for use/disclosure of personal information
• Search engine's obligation to de-index personal information
• Effectiveness of search engine URL removal tools

An investigation was launched after a complaint that Google's AdSense service delivered targeted advertisements for CPAP devices based on the complainant's online search for medical devices. The OPC found that Google used online behavioural advertising (OBA) to deliver these ads, which involved sensitive health information, without express consent. Google argued the ads were contextual, but the OPC determined they constituted OBA and contravened PIPEDA Principles 4.3 and 4.3.6 regarding consent for the use of sensitive information. Following recommendations, Google implemented remedial measures, leading to the complaint being conditionally resolved.

• Was sensitive health information used for online behavioural advertising without express consent?
• Did Google's practices comply with PIPEDA Principles 4.3 and 4.3.6 regarding knowledge and consent for the use of personal information?
• Did Google's privacy policy accurately reflect its practices regarding the use of sensitive health information for targeted advertising?
• Were Google's monitoring and compliance mechanisms adequate to prevent policy violations?