Canadian privacy & access decisions

A sergeant complained that his estranged wife, a civilian employee at a Canadian Forces Base, had unauthorized access to his military health records. The sergeant provided an audit log showing his wife accessed his Canadian Forces Health Information Services (CFHIS) account and deleted a physiotherapy appointment. National Defence (DND) confirmed the unauthorized access and noted she also accessed a paper physiotherapy file. DND determined she willfully breached departmental rules and implemented system restrictions to bar her access. The OPC found the access and use of medical information inconsistent with its original purpose and not a permissible use under the Privacy Act, upholding the complaint as well-founded. DND has since implemented new CFHIS controls and is evaluating its systems and practices for health information.

• Whether the estranged wife's access to the sergeant's medical records was authorized
• Whether the access and use of medical information was consistent with the purpose for which it was originally intended
• Whether the access and use met permissible uses defined in the Privacy Act

First Nations activist Cindy Blackstock complained that Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) and the Department of Justice Canada (DOJ) contravened the Privacy Act by collecting her personal information from her Facebook page. The departments argued that information posted publicly on Facebook was not personal. The OPC rejected this argument, finding that publicly available information can still be personal under the Privacy Act. The OPC found that the collection of personal information from Ms. Blackstock's personal Facebook page was not directly related to a government operating program or activity. Both departments accepted the OPC's recommendations to cease such collection, destroy previously collected personal information, and develop policies for social media monitoring.

• Whether information posted on a personal Facebook page constitutes "personal information" under the Privacy Act
• Whether the public availability of personal information on the Internet renders it non-personal
• Whether the collection of personal information from Ms. Blackstock's personal Facebook page was directly related to a government operating program or activity
• Whether the monitoring of Ms. Blackstock's public speeches constituted collection of "personal information" under the Privacy Act
• Whether repeated accessing of Ms. Blackstock's Indian status records was a contravention of the Privacy Act

An inmate at a maximum-security penitentiary requested video recordings of incidents involving officers. The Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) denied access, citing third-party information and security concerns. The OPC found complaints regarding 16 destroyed videos to be well-founded, as CSC had not even reviewed them before denial. For two other videos, which CSC claimed contained third-party information and posed security risks, the OPC found CSC correctly applied exemptions, thus resolving those complaints.

• Timeliness of responding to access to information requests
• Destruction of records prior to fulfilling requests
• Application of exemptions for security of penal institutions
• Proper review of records before withholding information

A complainant alleged that the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) denied him full access to a report concerning his treatment and supervision. The complainant initially received a three-page summary, but later learned the full report was ten pages with more findings. The OPC's investigation confirmed the existence of the longer report. CSC stated they provided a condensed version because the full report was based on informal interviews. The OPC found that providing an abbreviated version misrepresented the information and was contrary to CSC's obligations under the Privacy Act to process all relevant information. After negotiations, CSC provided the full report with third-party personal information redacted and committed to reviewing its access request handling and educating staff on Privacy Act obligations.

• Whether Correctional Service of Canada denied full access to a report
• Whether providing a condensed version of a report constitutes a misrepresentation of information
• Whether Correctional Service of Canada fulfilled its responsibility to identify and process all relevant information under the Privacy Act

A man applied for a Transportation Security Clearance in July 2010, which was denied by Transport Canada (TC) in September 2011 based on information from the RCMP. The man complained that the RCMP improperly disclosed his personal information to TC. The RCMP had obtained information about an incident involving the complainant in 2009, which resulted in an absolute discharge a few months later. The RCMP provided this information to TC in 2011. The OPC found that the disclosure contravened the Criminal Records Act because more than a year had passed since the absolute discharge and no ministerial approval was obtained. The disclosure was also not authorized under the Privacy Act. The complaint was found to be well-founded.

• Whether the RCMP's disclosure of personal information to Transport Canada contravened the Criminal Records Act
• Whether the RCMP's disclosure of personal information to Transport Canada was authorized under the Privacy Act

A complainant alleged that a Canadian Forces (CF) employee, with whom he had a prior personal relationship, inappropriately accessed his personal health information. The investigation found that the employee accessed the complainant’s health information in the Canadian Forces Health Information System (CFHIS) multiple times after receiving an anonymous message about the complainant's health. The employee admitted to accessing and using the information for personal reasons, which was inconsistent with the purpose for its collection. The complaint was found to be well-founded. As a result, National Defence acknowledged the importance of privacy awareness and training, implemented new controls in CFHIS, updated its health service policy, and provided training to CF healthcare staff.

• Whether a National Defence employee inappropriately accessed personal health information for personal reasons
• Whether the access was inconsistent with the purpose for which the information was collected

A woman complained that two RCMP employee landlords performed a criminal background check on her using the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) database when she applied to rent a basement apartment. The landlords requested personal identification to "look into" prospective tenants. An internal RCMP investigation confirmed that one officer accessed CPIC for personal reasons, citing the applicant being from "out of town" and concerns for officer safety and organizational security. The OPC found that the CPIC database contains personal information and its use is restricted to legitimate law enforcement purposes. The investigation concluded that the officer's access was for personal reasons, not authorized operational purposes. The complaint was found to be well-founded, and the RCMP took remedial actions including an apology to the complainant and a communiqué to employees regarding CPIC use policies.

• Whether the CPIC database contains personal information under the Privacy Act
• Whether the RCMP officer accessed the CPIC database for personal reasons
• Whether the access to the CPIC database was for an authorized operational purpose

A complainant alleged that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) contravened the Privacy Act when an employee accessed his tax file without authorization in 2005 and 2006. The complainant became suspicious after community members showed knowledge of his financial information. An audit trail report revealed that a CRA employee had accessed his T1 tax account twice, viewing sensitive personal information including his Social Insurance Number, income, and family details. The OPC's investigation confirmed that the employee accessed the account without authorization and beyond the scope of their duties. The complaint was found to be well-founded, and CRA confirmed the employee no longer has access to taxpayer information.

• Whether a CRA employee accessed the complainant's tax file without authorization
• Whether the unauthorized access contravened the use and disclosure provisions of the Privacy Act

An individual, claiming to be a beneficiary of two estates, sought access under PIPEDA to estate information from a legal firm that had acted as an agent for another firm administering the estates. The complainant requested information pertaining to himself as a beneficiary and general beneficiary entitlements. The legal firm initially failed to respond to the access requests, leading to a complaint with the OPC. The firm later responded, stating it held no personal information about the complainant and that neither he nor the estates were clients. The OPC found that the firm contravened PIPEDA by not responding within the 30-day time limit. However, the OPC also determined that the complainant was only entitled to access information specifically about himself, not general estate information, and was satisfied that the firm had conducted a reasonable search for his personal information. The complaint was deemed well-founded and resolved due to the firm's initial failure to respond.

• Whether a legal firm must respond to an access request within 30 days, even if it holds no personal information about the requester
• Whether a beneficiary of an estate is entitled under PIPEDA to access general estate information
• Whether the requested information (e.g., statements of accounts, money received, disbursements) constitutes the complainant's personal information under PIPEDA
• Whether the legal firm conducted a reasonable search for the complainant's personal information

An individual filed a complaint against a retailer, alleging that the retailer withheld access to her personal information, contravening subsection 8(3) and Principle 4.9 of PIPEDA. The complainant and retailer were involved in ongoing small claims court litigation, and the complainant stated the information was necessary for her case. The retailer refused access, citing litigation privilege and prior disclosure. The OPC declined to investigate the complaint, finding that the court's procedures provided a more appropriate means for the complainant to address the access issues. This decision was based on avoiding conflict with provincial court rules and ensuring judicious use of public resources.

• Whether the complaint could more appropriately be dealt with by means of a procedure provided for under the laws of a province under paragraph 12(1)(b) of PIPEDA
• Whether the retailer withheld access to personal information in contravention of subsection 8(3) of PIPEDA
• Whether the retailer withheld access to personal information in contravention of Principle 4.9 of Schedule 1 of PIPEDA

Three individuals complained that their dating profiles, containing sensitive medical information, posted on PositiveSingles.com appeared on numerous other affiliated dating websites without their knowledge or consent. The complainants were assured of privacy but found their profiles on sites targeting different demographics, causing distress. The OPC's investigation found that PositiveSingles.com, operated by SuccessfulMatch Inc., used a single database across a network of affiliated sites, making profiles automatically available. The OPC concluded that the organization failed to obtain meaningful consent for this use, lacked openness about its network structure, and had inadequate safeguards, as some personal information was accessible via search engines. Following the OPC's recommendations, SuccessfulMatch revamped its website to provide explicit information about the network, ensure informed consent at registration, and improve safeguards. The complaint was found well-founded and resolved due to these corrective measures.

• Whether PositiveSingles.com obtained meaningful consent for the use of personal information across its network of affiliated sites (Principle 4.3, 4.3.2, 4.3.5 PIPEDA)
• Whether PositiveSingles.com was sufficiently open about its personal information management policies and practices, particularly regarding its network structure (Principle 4.8, 4.8.1 PIPEDA)
• Whether PositiveSingles.com implemented adequate security safeguards to protect sensitive personal information from unauthorized access (Principle 4.7, 4.7.1 PIPEDA)
• Whether PositiveSingles.com's use of cookies, potentially for online behavioral advertising, required express consent given the sensitive nature of the information

An individual complained that Apple was using and sharing her unique device identifier (UDID) without her knowledge and consent for tracking and targeted advertising. The OPC determined that UDIDs, and later Advertising IDs (Ad IDs), constituted personal information because Apple could link them to identifiable individuals. While Apple's use of UDIDs for administrative purposes was deemed to have implied consent, the OPC initially found Apple's explanations for using and disclosing UDIDs for targeted advertising to be insufficient for meaningful consent. During the investigation, Apple phased out the use of UDIDs for advertising, introduced the resettable Ad ID, and improved its privacy policy explanations and opt-out mechanisms. Consequently, the OPC found that Apple's updated practices provided sufficient information for meaningful consent regarding the use and disclosure of Ad IDs for advertising. The complaint was found to be well-founded but resolved due to Apple's corrective actions.

• Whether Unique Device Identifiers (UDID) constitute personal information under PIPEDA.
• Whether Advertising Identifiers (Ad ID) constitute personal information under PIPEDA.
• Whether Apple obtained meaningful consent for its use of UDID for administration and maintenance purposes (Principle 4.3 PIPEDA).
• Whether Apple obtained meaningful consent for its use of UDID and Ad ID for targeted advertising purposes (Principle 4.3 PIPEDA).
• Whether Apple obtained meaningful consent for its disclosure of UDID and Ad ID to third-party app developers (Principle 4.3 PIPEDA).
• Whether Apple's explanations regarding the use and disclosure of UDID and Ad ID were sufficiently clear and understandable to ensure meaningful consent (Principle 4.3.2 PIPEDA).
• Whether the sensitivity of UDID and Ad ID in the context of user profiling and online behavioural advertising required express consent (Principle 4.3.6 PIPEDA).
• Whether the reasonable expectations of the individual were met regarding the use and disclosure of UDID and Ad ID (Principle 4.3.5 PIPEDA).

An individual complained that a property management company was over-collecting personal information on rental application forms, specifically requesting Social Insurance Numbers (SINs), driver's licence information, and banking details as a condition of application. The complainant also noted the absence of a privacy policy on the company's website. The OPC contacted the company, which stated its website was under construction and would include a privacy policy. The company used third-party generated forms and believed SINs were necessary for credit checks, a point the OPC disputed. The OPC suggested marking SIN requests as 'optional' and advised against collecting unique driver's licence numbers. The company committed to updating its forms and website, satisfying the complainant. The OPC later confirmed these changes were implemented.

• Whether the collection of Social Insurance Numbers (SINs) was appropriate
• Whether the collection of driver's licence numbers was appropriate
• Whether the collection of banking information was appropriate
• Whether the organization made its privacy policy readily available as required by PIPEDA

A bank customer complained after being asked to provide his driver's license to pick up a replacement credit card, despite having other identification on file and being known to staff. The bank initially cited anti-money laundering regulations (PCMLTFA) but later admitted this rationale was incorrect. The OPC investigated two issues: whether the bank improperly demanded to record information (collection) and whether it could explain the purpose of collection. Since the customer refused to provide his driver's license, no actual collection occurred, so that aspect of the complaint was not well-founded. However, the bank's inaccurate explanation for requesting the information contravened Principle 4.2.5. The bank revised its procedures and circulated new guidelines to staff, leading to a well-founded and resolved outcome for the latter issue.

• Whether the bank limited its collection of personal information to that which was necessary for the purposes identified by the organization (Principle 4.4 PIPEDA)
• Whether the bank ensured its employees were able to explain the purposes for which personal information was being collected (Principle 4.2.5 PIPEDA)

A landlord complained that a telecommunications firm disclosed his personal account information, including debt details, to his tenant without consent. The firm had merged the landlord's existing account with the tenant's new account because they shared the same address. This led to the firm demanding payment from the tenant for services he had not ordered and disclosing the landlord's information during collection attempts. The tenant then confronted the landlord, accusing him of debt evasion and threatening to vacate. The landlord filed a complaint with the OPC, alleging unauthorized disclosure of his personal information.

• Whether the telecommunications firm disclosed the landlord's personal information without consent
• Whether the firm was responsible for merging the accounts and the subsequent unauthorized disclosure