Canadian privacy & access decisions

A former RCMP member complained that the RCMP inappropriately collected her personal medical and financial information from Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) after she was awarded a disability pension. The complainant alleged that the RCMP's National Compensation Policy Centre had no need for this sensitive information. The OPC found that the 2002 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the RCMP and VAC transferred responsibility for pension administration to VAC, meaning the RCMP's National Compensation Policy Centre did not require the detailed medical diagnosis or financial information. The OPC concluded that the collection of this information by the RCMP was not for a purpose consistent with section 4 of the Privacy Act. The complaint was found to be well-founded, and the OPC recommended updating the MOU and reviewing RCMP's internal policies on access to medical records.

• Whether the collection of the complainant's financial information by the RCMP was necessary and related directly to an operating program or activity under section 4 of the Privacy Act
• Whether the collection of the complainant's medical diagnosis/pensioned disability by the RCMP was necessary and related directly to an operating program or activity under section 4 of the Privacy Act
• Whether the collection of the complainant's disability percentage by the RCMP was necessary and related directly to an operating program or activity under section 4 of the Privacy Act
• Whether the collection of personal information by the RCMP's National Compensation Policy Centre was consistent with the RCMP's own internal policies restricting access to sensitive medical information
• Whether the MOU between VAC and the RCMP adequately addressed information sharing practices for sensitive personal information

A former RCMP member complained that Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) inappropriately disclosed her medical diagnosis, disability percentage, and financial information to the RCMP's National Compensation Policy Centre. VAC argued the disclosure was a 'consistent use' under the Privacy Act, citing the RCMP's responsibility for members' health services and an MOU between the two institutions. The OPC found that the information provided to the complainant at the time of application was inadequate to establish informed consent for such disclosure. Furthermore, the MOU did not explicitly authorize the sharing of detailed medical and financial information with the RCMP's National Compensation Policy Centre. The OPC concluded that the disclosure was not a consistent use and therefore contravened the Privacy Act, noting the systemic nature of this issue affecting many RCMP employees.

• Whether the disclosure of the complainant's medical and financial information by VAC to the RCMP was authorized by consent under subsection 8(1) of the Privacy Act
• Whether the disclosure of the complainant's medical and financial information by VAC to the RCMP was for a consistent use under paragraph 8(2)(a) of the Privacy Act
• Whether the information provided to disability pension applicants by VAC was sufficient to establish informed consent for disclosure to the RCMP
• Whether the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between VAC and the RCMP authorized the detailed sharing of personal medical and financial information
• Whether the RCMP's National Compensation Policy Centre had a 'need to know' the complainant's detailed medical and financial information

An employee of the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) complained on behalf of colleagues that the CBSA was using video monitoring to collect personal information for the purpose of monitoring employee conduct and performance, beyond the original safety and security purposes. The complainant also alleged insufficient signage. The OPC found the signage issue was resolved early in the investigation as the CBSA added more signs. Regarding the use of video for monitoring conduct and performance, the CBSA updated its policy to clarify that video technology would not be used for performance monitoring. The OPC accepted the CBSA's rationale for using video recordings to investigate serious misconduct, finding it met the standard for collection under section 4 of the Privacy Act. However, the resolution was conditional on the CBSA providing updated guidelines for implementing its policy.

• Whether the CBSA's use of video monitoring for employee conduct and performance monitoring contravened the Privacy Act
• Whether the collection of personal information via video technology was necessary and related directly to an operating program or activity of the institution under section 4 of the Privacy Act
• Whether the CBSA had sufficient signage to inform employees of video monitoring

A complainant alleged that his Internet service provider (ISP) disclosed his personal information without consent to a newspaper columnist. The complainant had contacted the columnist for assistance in resolving a service dispute with the ISP. The ISP argued it had implied consent to disclose information relevant to the dispute. The OPC found that the personal information disclosed was not sensitive and that, given the complainant's actions and familiarity with the columnist's work, it was reasonable for the ISP to infer implied consent. The ISP also limited its disclosure to information relevant to the complaint. Therefore, the OPC concluded that the complaint was not well-founded.

• Whether the ISP had the complainant's consent to disclose information to the newspaper columnist
• Whether the personal information disclosed was sensitive
• Whether implied consent was appropriate in the circumstances
• Whether the ISP limited its disclosure to relevant information

The Canadian Council for Refugees complained that the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) improperly disclosed an individual's personal information on its "Wanted by the CBSA" website. The program aimed to solicit public help in locating individuals with Canada-wide warrants for removal, including those accused of war crimes. The OPC found that while the disclosure of personal information was permissible under the Privacy Act as a consistent use for immigration law enforcement, the CBSA failed to ensure the information was accurate, up-to-date, and complete. Specifically, the website implied a conviction for war crimes when the individual was only deemed inadmissible under immigration law. This led to a well-founded finding regarding the accuracy of the information. The CBSA accepted five recommendations, including revisiting the amount of personal information disclosed, clarifying the distinction between criminal conviction and immigration determination, and improving the timely removal of profiles.

• Whether the disclosure of personal information on the "Wanted by the CBSA" website was permissible under the Privacy Act as a consistent use
• Whether the CBSA took all reasonable steps to ensure the personal information was accurate, up-to-date, and complete as required by the Privacy Act
• Whether the CBSA should have conducted a Privacy Impact Assessment before launching the program

An individual complained that an equipment store required a scanned copy of his driver's license and a photograph as a condition for renting equipment. The store justified this practice by citing past losses of expensive rental equipment. The OPC informed the store that collecting driver's license information in this manner was generally inappropriate due to the excessive personal information contained on the license and its limited value in theft investigations. The OPC provided guidance on appropriate collection practices. As a result of the OPC's intervention, the store implemented a less privacy-invasive solution and trained its staff. The complainant was satisfied with the outcome.

• Whether requiring a scanned copy of a driver's license and a photograph for equipment rental constitutes appropriate collection of personal information under PIPEDA
• Whether the collection of driver's license information is justified for addressing customer theft

A complaint was filed on behalf of RCMP members regarding the disclosure of informal disciplinary records to the Crown, arguing it was inconsistent with the Supreme Court's R. v. McNeil decision. The complainant contended that only records from formal disciplinary hearings should be disclosed. The RCMP maintained that both formal and informal misconduct records could be relevant under McNeil, and the OPC agreed with this interpretation, finding the complaint not well-founded. However, the OPC expressed serious concerns about the RCMP's policy of retaining disciplinary records until members reach 100 years of age, which is significantly longer than other police services. The OPC recommended the RCMP reconsider its retention policies, but the RCMP indicated it would continue its current practice.

• Whether the disclosure of informal disciplinary records to the Crown is consistent with R. v. McNeil
• Whether the RCMP's retention period for disciplinary records is appropriate

The Canada School of Public Service (the School) received a letter from the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner (PSIC) detailing allegations of wrongdoing against seven employees. The School then hand-delivered copies of this letter, which identified the seven individuals and the alleged wrongdoings, to each of the named employees. One of these employees complained to the OPC, alleging that the disclosure of his name via this letter violated the Privacy Act. The OPC found the complaint to be well-founded, concluding that the School had improperly disclosed personal information. Following the OPC's recommendations, the School developed new procedures to protect the confidentiality of information related to the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act and a plan for addressing privacy breaches.

• Whether the Canada School of Public Service disclosed personal information contrary to the Privacy Act by hand-delivering a letter from the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner to employees named in it

An individual filed a complaint against a retailer, alleging a failure to provide access to personal information under PIPEDA. This complaint arose after the complainant and the retailer had settled a small claims court dispute. As part of that settlement, the complainant had signed a mutual release, receiving financial compensation in exchange for releasing the retailer from all claims and complaints, including those arising under statute, related to events prior to the release date. The OPC found that the complaint was made in bad faith, given the existence of this mutual release. Consequently, the investigation was discontinued under paragraph 12.2(1)(b) of PIPEDA.

• Whether the complaint was made in bad faith under paragraph 12.2(1)(b) of PIPEDA
• Whether a mutual release agreement impacts the validity of a subsequent privacy complaint

A group of Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) employees complained that a new policy requiring them to wear name tags displaying their surnames, instead of badge numbers, violated sections 7 and 8 of the Privacy Act. They argued this constituted an unreasonable invasion of privacy and made them vulnerable to violence and intimidation, as their names could be used to find personal information. The CBSA contended that the name tags were part of a service excellence initiative, promoted professionalism and accountability, and that an employee's name on a name tag falls under an exception to the definition of personal information in the Act. The OPC found that while a surname on a name tag is information about an identifiable individual, it falls under paragraph (j) of the definition of personal information, which excludes information relating to the position or functions of a government employee for the purposes of sections 7 and 8. Therefore, the OPC concluded that the policy did not violate the Act.

• Whether the surname of a Border Services Officer (BSO) displayed on a name tag constitutes "personal information" under section 3 of the Privacy Act
• Whether the surname on a name tag falls within the exception to the definition of personal information under paragraph (j) of section 3 of the Privacy Act
• Whether the CBSA's requirement for BSOs to wear name tags displaying their surnames violates sections 7 and 8 of the Privacy Act

An individual complained that Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) improperly disclosed personal information to La Presse newspaper. The newspaper published an article referencing a document created by AANDC that listed individuals who had made Access to Information Act (ATIA) requests related to former Minister Jim Prentice. AANDC confirmed the document's existence and reported that it had been created to respond to ATIA requests. The OPC found that AANDC improperly disclosed the personal information of those listed in the document, which ultimately reached La Presse. Furthermore, AANDC shared this information with officials who did not have a legitimate need-to-know. The complaint was found to be well-founded.

• Whether the document contained personal information under s.3 of the Privacy Act
• Whether all AANDC officials who accessed the document had a need-to-know the identity of the requesters under s.7(a) of the Privacy Act and TBS Policy on Access to Information s.6.2.3
• Whether the disclosure of the information to La Presse constituted a contravention of s.8 of the Privacy Act

A complainant alleged that the Public Service Commission of Canada (PSC) improperly disclosed her medical information during an investigation into potential fraud in an appointment process. The PSC included a doctor's letter detailing the complainant's medical condition in a factual report, which was then shared with all witnesses in the investigation. The PSC argued this disclosure was necessary to uphold procedural fairness under paragraph 8(2)(a) of the Privacy Act, as all witnesses were "affected persons" who could face adverse conclusions. The OPC found that while procedural fairness may necessitate some disclosure, the PSC failed to demonstrate why the specific medical details were relevant or necessary for the witnesses to know. The OPC concluded that sharing the full doctor's letter was not a "consistent use" of the information and therefore contravened subsection 8(1) of the Privacy Act. The complaint was found to be well-founded, and the PSC committed to implementing new procedures to ensure compliance.

• Whether the disclosure of the complainant's medical information to witnesses was a "consistent use" under paragraph 8(2)(a) of the Privacy Act
• Whether the PSC's interpretation of "affected person" and the requirements of procedural fairness justified the disclosure of sensitive medical information to all witnesses
• Whether the PSC contravened subsection 8(1) of the Privacy Act by disclosing personal information without consent or a valid exception

An individual complained that a videographer used her wedding video for promotional purposes online without her consent. The videographer posted the video on social media and embedded it in a business listing to attract new clients. The videographer claimed a verbal agreement for reduced rates in exchange for promotional use and asserted copyright, but no documentation supported this. The OPC determined that using the video for promotional purposes constituted commercial activity under PIPEDA. Since no valid consent was obtained and no exemptions applied, the videographer was found to be in contravention of PIPEDA. The videographer subsequently removed the video and committed to including consent language in future contracts.

• Whether the use of personal information constituted commercial activity
• Whether the videographer had consent for this use
• Whether the videographer needed consent for this use

An individual complained that Apple unnecessarily required payment information and date of birth to download free applications. The OPC found that Apple's privacy policy did not fully identify the purposes for collecting date of birth for authentication, leading to a well-founded and conditionally resolved finding after Apple agreed to revise its policy. Regarding payment information, the OPC determined that Apple did not make instructions for downloading free apps without providing payment details clearly accessible. This aspect was also found to be well-founded, and Apple agreed to implement a clear option for users to proceed without supplying payment information at registration. The OPC was pleased with Apple's commitment to address the issues.

• Whether Apple's privacy policy adequately identified the purposes for collecting date of birth information for authentication (Principle 4.2 PIPEDA)
• Whether Apple's collection of date of birth was limited to what was necessary for identified purposes (Principle 4.4 PIPEDA)
• Whether Apple made information about its policies and practices concerning the collection of credit card information readily available to individuals (Principle 4.8 PIPEDA)
• Whether Apple's practices resulted in the over-collection of sensitive payment information (Principle 4.4 PIPEDA)

A life insurance company discovered that a mass mailing error risked exposing the personal information of 53 pension plan members. The new window envelopes used were larger, potentially revealing certificate numbers, SINs, dates of birth, spouse's names, and beneficiaries if statements shifted. Upon discovering the incident, the company promptly notified affected individuals, apologized, explained the incident, and offered a free one-year credit monitoring service. They also advised members to take harm-reducing steps and ceased using the problematic envelopes. The company informed the OPC about the incident and its response. The OPC concluded that the company demonstrated best practices in its incident response.

• Whether a mass mailing error led to the potential exposure of personal information
• Whether the life insurance company's response to the incident constituted best practices