Canadian privacy & access decisions

The complainant alleged that his employer disclosed detailed personal information about his absence from the workplace to other employees in his work unit. The organization used an electronic scheduling program that allowed all employees to view approved leave information, including the reason for absence, for all other employees in their unit. The organization argued this was necessary to facilitate shift exchanges and meet collective agreement obligations. The OPC found that the leave information was personal information and that the disclosure was not for purposes a reasonable person would consider appropriate under subsection 5(3) of PIPEDA. The OPC determined that less privacy-intrusive means existed and that the benefits of the system were not proportional to the loss of privacy. The organization agreed to remove employee leave information viewable by co-workers from its scheduling program within 18 months.

• Whether the disclosed leave information constituted personal information under PIPEDA
• Whether the organization's purposes for disclosing employee leave information to other employees were appropriate in the circumstances under subsection 5(3) of PIPEDA
• Whether the disclosure of leave type was necessary for the organization to meet its employee schedule management needs
• Whether the benefits of the leave exchange system were proportional to the loss of privacy experienced by employees

The complainant requested access to the Firearms Registry database from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) on March 27, 2012, prior to the enactment of the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act. The complainant alleged that the RCMP provided an incomplete response, failed to justify the incompleteness, and obstructed the right of access by destroying responsive records. The investigation focused on whether the RCMP's actions, particularly the destruction of records, constituted an obstruction of the right of access under section 67.1 of the Access to Information Act. The Commissioner examined the circumstances surrounding the destruction of the Long-gun Registry data. The Commissioner found that the destruction of the records was carried out in accordance with a valid legislative process and did not constitute an obstruction of the right of access.

• Whether the information provided was incomplete
• Whether the RCMP justified the incomplete response
• Whether the destruction of responsive records by the RCMP obstructed the right of access under section 67.1 of the Act

The complainant alleged that the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) improperly disclosed his personal information, including a judgment from his country of origin, to the High Commission of Canada in Ghana and subsequently to Interpol, without his consent. This disclosure occurred during the verification of documents submitted for his refugee claim, which alleged persecution by the Nigerian government. The CBSA argued the disclosure was a consistent use under the Privacy Act for refugee determination and enforcement of the IRPA, necessary to verify the authenticity of the judgment after other documents were found fraudulent. The OPC found that the disclosure itself was permitted under paragraph 8(2)(a) of the Privacy Act as a consistent use for refugee determination purposes, thus concluding the primary complaint was "not well-founded." However, the OPC raised significant concerns regarding the CBSA's lack of established procedures for such verifications at the time, and the use of insecure commercial email (Yahoo!) for transmitting sensitive personal information of a refugee claimant. The OPC emphasized the inherent sensitivity of such information and the potential risk to claimants, recommending that CBSA review and strengthen its procedures, particularly concerning secure transmission methods and training. The OPC also noted it lacked jurisdiction over the actions of Interpol or Nigerian authorities.

• Whether the disclosure of the complainant's personal information (including the Judgment) by CBSA to the High Commission and Interpol without consent contravened section 8 of the Privacy Act.
• Whether the disclosure was for a purpose consistent with the original collection under paragraph 8(2)(a) of the Privacy Act.
• Whether CBSA's procedures for verifying documents with countries of origin and Interpol were sufficient at the time of disclosure.
• Whether the electronic transmission of personal information via commercial email (Yahoo!) was secure and appropriate given the sensitivity.
• Whether the OPC had jurisdiction over alleged secondary disclosures by Interpol or Nigerian authorities.

An individual complained that an investment brokerage required excessive personal information, including net worth, marital status, and spouse's occupation, to open a self-directed investment account. The complainant argued this was unnecessary given the self-directed nature of the account and that the collection was a condition of service. The brokerage contended that the information was required to comply with regulatory obligations from the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC), the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA), and provincial securities legislation. The OPC found that the purposes for collection were properly identified and appropriate, and that the information was necessary to meet the brokerage's legal and regulatory obligations. Therefore, the OPC concluded that the complaint was not well-founded.

• Whether the collection of net worth, marital status, and spouse's occupation was necessary for opening a self-directed investment account under Principle 4.4 PIPEDA
• Whether the purposes for collecting the personal information were explicitly specified under Principle 4.2 PIPEDA
• Whether the purposes for collecting the personal information were legitimate and appropriate under subsection 5(3) PIPEDA
• Whether the organization required consent to the collection of information beyond that required for explicitly specified and legitimate purposes as a condition of service under Principle 4.3.3 PIPEDA

An individual complained that Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) mishandled her personal information by disclosing that she had filed a harassment complaint against her Director. The complainant alleged that the Director revealed this information during a management meeting. The investigation confirmed that the Director disclosed at a management meeting that the complainant had filed a complaint against her, as evidenced by meeting notes and confirmations from attendees. While the Director claimed the information was also her personal information, the OPC found no evidence that the employees present at the meeting needed to know the complainant's identity. The OPC concluded that PSPC did not reasonably consider the appropriateness of disclosing the complainant's identity without her consent, violating the Privacy Act.

• Whether the disclosure of the complainant's identity as having filed a harassment complaint constituted personal information under s.3 of the Privacy Act
• Whether the disclosure of the complainant's identity was made without her consent
• Whether the disclosure was for a purpose consistent with the purpose for which the information was obtained or compiled, as per s.8(2)(a) of the Privacy Act
• Whether the employees present at the meeting needed to know the complainant's identity

The OPC initiated an investigation into Peoples Trust following a data breach that compromised sensitive personal information of approximately 12,000 customers. The investigation found that Peoples Trust failed to implement adequate technological and organizational safeguards, including using an outdated and vulnerable web editor and lacking ongoing monitoring. Additionally, the organization unnecessarily stored duplicate, unencrypted customer information on a web server for longer than required, contravening its retention policies. Following the OPC's intervention, Peoples Trust implemented comprehensive remedial measures, such as redesigning its web portal, enhancing monitoring, and developing a new Information Security Policy. As a result, the OPC concluded the matter was well-founded and resolved.

• Whether Peoples Trust implemented adequate technological and organizational safeguards appropriate to the sensitivity of the information, as per Principle 4.7 and 4.1.4(a) PIPEDA
• Whether Peoples Trust retained personal information for longer than necessary to fulfill its purposes, as per Principle 4.5 PIPEDA

An individual complained after receiving a promotional phone call from a hotel chain shortly after visiting its website, suspecting the hotel linked her IP address to her phone number. The hotel chain denied making such calls or collecting her personal information, stating the call was part of a telemarketing scam by an unrelated party. The OPC's investigation confirmed the calls were indeed a scam. The complainant suggested the hotel warn its customers, which the hotel did. The matter was resolved through the OPC's early resolution process.

• Whether the hotel chain collected the complainant's personal information (phone number) from her website visit
• Whether the promotional phone call originated from the hotel chain or an unrelated third party

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC) initiated a complaint against Health Canada (HC) after HC sent 41,514 letters to "Marihuana Medical Access Program" (MMAP) clients in windowed envelopes that allowed the program name to be openly visible. The OPC also received 339 individual complaints regarding this incident. Complainants were concerned that the visible program name revealed their association with MMAP to Canada Post employees and the public, potentially impacting their careers, reputation, and safety due to the stigma associated with marihuana. HC argued that the disclosure was implicitly consented to, was a consistent use of information, or was not an unlawful disclosure by HC. The OPC found that the combination of the MMAP name and the individual's name and address constituted sensitive personal information. HC failed to demonstrate appropriate consent or that any permissible disclosures under section 8(2) of the Privacy Act applied. The OPC concluded that HC contravened the Privacy Act.

• Whether the phrase "Marihuana Medical Access Program" combined with an individual's name and address constitutes personal information under section 3 of the Privacy Act
• Whether subsequent actions by individuals (e.g., media communication) alter Health Canada's obligations under the Privacy Act
• Whether mail recipients implicitly consented to the disclosure of their personal information under section 8(1) of the Privacy Act
• Whether the disclosure was a "consistent use" under section 8(2)(a) of the Privacy Act
• Whether limiting information on return address blocks would have broad implications for government communication

A former Canadian Forces member complained that the Department of National Defence (DND) prematurely destroyed an audio recording of his Progress Review Board (PRB) hearing, thereby contravening the retention and disposal provisions of the Privacy Act. The complainant argued that the recording was personal information used for an administrative purpose and should have been retained for a reasonable period to allow him access. DND contended the recording was a "transitory" record, destroyed after minutes were drafted, and that the complainant had implicitly consented to its disposal by signing the minutes. The OPC found that the audio recording contained personal information used for an administrative purpose and that the complainant had not consented to its disposal. Therefore, DND was obligated to retain the recording for at least two years.

• Whether the audio recording contained the complainant's "personal information" as defined by the Act
• Whether the personal information in the audio recording was used for an "administrative purpose"
• Whether the complainant consented to the disposal of the information
• Whether DND's classification of the recording as "transitory" exempted it from Privacy Act retention requirements

An office building tenant complained about five video surveillance cameras installed in a shared common area by another tenant, a call centre company. The complainant found it disturbing that the cameras recorded his and his clients' movements, particularly two cameras positioned between his office, the washrooms, and the elevators. The installing tenant claimed the cameras were for safety following a security incident and that building management had authorized their installation. After the OPC became involved, the building management facilitated the relocation of the two most concerning cameras from the shared hallway into the installing tenant's offices. The complainant expressed satisfaction that his and his clients' privacy rights were now respected. The case was resolved early.

• Whether the installation of video surveillance cameras in a shared common area by one tenant infringed on the privacy of another tenant and their clients
• Whether the collection of personal information via video surveillance was appropriate and proportionate to the stated safety purpose
• Whether consent was obtained for the video surveillance