Canadian privacy & access decisions

An individual complained that the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) improperly collected information from his personal online blog after his term position ended. The complainant alleged that his tracking device showed visits from government computers. The OPC investigated whether the CBSA had inappropriately collected personal information. The investigation found that several CBSA employees had viewed the blog, but did so in a personal capacity, which was deemed to accord with the government's Acceptable Use Policy. The OPC found no evidence that the agency had collected personal information in connection with these visits. Therefore, the complaints were determined to be not well-founded.

• Whether the Canada Border Services Agency improperly collected personal information from the complainant's blog
• Whether employees viewing a public blog from government workstations constitutes collection of personal information by the agency

A Member of Parliament complained that an employee of the Toronto Port Authority (TPA) misused the organization's email database to invite people to a political fundraising event. The investigation found that a TPA employee sent an email to approximately 60 people, soliciting donations and inviting participation in a fundraiser for another MP. The employee obtained these email addresses from business cards collected by the TPA, including both business and personal addresses. The OPC determined that the employee used this personal information without the TPA's knowledge or authorization and for reasons unrelated to the organization's business activities. The complaint was found to be well-founded, but the TPA took corrective measures, including reminding employees of their responsibilities and pledging Privacy Act training.

• Whether a Toronto Port Authority employee misused personal information for a political fundraiser
• Whether email addresses obtained from business cards constitute personal information
• Whether the use of personal information was without the knowledge or authorization of the institution
• Whether the use of personal information was for reasons unrelated to the organization's business activities

The parents of a 17-year-old dependent complained that they could not access their daughter's online dental benefit information from their group dental plan administrator. The administrator's policy required consent from individuals aged 16 or older before their information could be accessed by another plan member, even parents. The administrator defended its policy by citing PIPEDA's consent requirements, the lack of a national age of majority consensus, and the distinction between age of majority and age of consent. The policy was based on the Ontario Health Care Consent Act, which suggests 16 as an age for health care consent. The mother was satisfied with the explanation and understood that she could access her daughter's account if her daughter provided consent by sharing her password.

• Whether a dental plan administrator requires consent from a 17-year-old dependent to disclose her dental benefit information to her parents
• Whether the age of majority or age of consent impacts the requirement for consent under PIPEDA for minors

A married couple applied for a joint mortgage. The husband alleged that a bank mortgage specialist disclosed his account information to his wife without his consent during the application process. The bank argued there was implicit consent given the joint mortgage application. The Assistant Commissioner found that the bank did not make a reasonable effort to inform the couple of the purposes for which their financial information would be disclosed to each other. Therefore, the bank did not have meaningful consent for the disclosure. Although the incident was a one-time error by an employee, the complaint was found to be well-founded and resolved as the bank had adopted reasonable practices.

• Whether the bank had the husband's implicit or explicit consent to disclose his account information to his wife
• Whether the bank made a reasonable effort to inform the couple of the purposes for which their financial information would be disclosed
• Whether the bank's mortgage specialist followed the bank's usual practice for informing joint mortgage applicants
• Whether the presumption of implied consent remained reasonable after the wife's reaction to the initial disclosure

The OPC investigated a complaint against the RCMP regarding the use and disclosure of personal information from the Canadian Firearms Program (CFP) to EKOS Research Associates Inc. for a survey of firearms licensees. The investigation examined whether the RCMP improperly used or disclosed personal information in contravention of sections 7 and 8 of the Privacy Act. The OPC found that the use of information for a client-satisfaction survey to improve CFP services was consistent with the original collection purpose, thus not contravening section 7. Furthermore, the disclosure to EKOS, acting as an agent under a contract with confidentiality and security provisions, did not contravene section 8. The complaint was therefore deemed not well-founded. The OPC noted that the CFP committed to updating its InfoSource entry and website to better inform the public about information use for surveys and acknowledged that a Privacy Impact Assessment would have been beneficial.

• Whether the use of personal information for a client-satisfaction survey was consistent with the purpose for which it was obtained or compiled under s.7(a) of the Privacy Act
• Whether the disclosure of personal information to EKOS Research Associates Inc. for the survey contravened s.8 of the Privacy Act
• Whether the personal information collected by the RCMP related directly to an operating program or activity of the institution under s.4 of the Privacy Act

A woman complained that the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) improperly collected and used her personal information by allegedly accessing her wireless Internet connection to post messages on a white supremacist website during an investigation. An Internet Service Provider, responding to a subpoena, linked an IP address associated with the alleged CHRC activity to the complainant. The OPC's investigation found no evidence that the CHRC collected, used, or disclosed any personal information about the complainant or was even aware of her prior to the tribunal hearing. Technological experts suggested the IP address association was a third-party mismatch. The complaint was found to be not well-founded.

• Whether the Canadian Human Rights Commission improperly collected and used the complainant's personal information
• Whether the CHRC accessed the complainant's wireless Internet connection
• Whether an IP address can be considered personal information

The OPC investigated a complaint regarding the leak of a Canadian citizen's personal information from a DFAIT database, which was reported in the media in spring 2008. The investigation confirmed the information was held in an official consular record within DFAIT's computer system. A significant concern was that 1,231 DFAIT employees had access to these files, and the system lacked audit trail capabilities or mechanisms to restrict access to specific records. Consequently, the OPC could not identify the source of the leak. The complaint was found to be well-founded, and DFAIT agreed to implement corrective measures.

• Whether personal information was leaked from a DFAIT database
• Whether DFAIT's security safeguards were adequate to protect personal information
• Whether DFAIT's computer system had sufficient audit trail capabilities
• Whether DFAIT's computer system had mechanisms to restrict access to particular files

CIPPIC complained that Abika.com, a U.S. company, collected, used, and disclosed Canadians' personal information without consent, compiled and disclosed inaccurate personal information through its "psychological profile" service, and used personal information for inappropriate purposes. The OPC initially declined jurisdiction, but the Federal Court ordered the investigation to proceed. The OPC found that Abika collected and disclosed personal information, including telephone records, of Canadians without their knowledge or consent, often for inappropriate purposes such as investigating partners. While the OPC found the accuracy complaint not well-founded due to lack of verifiable evidence, it concluded that Abika contravened PIPEDA Principles 4.3 and subsection 5(3). Abika failed to respond adequately to the OPC's recommendations.

• Whether Abika collected, used, and disclosed personal information of individuals living in Canada without their knowledge and consent, in contravention of Principle 4.3
• Whether Abika compiled and disclosed inaccurate personal information through its "psychological profile" service, in contravention of Principle 4.6
• Whether Abika collected, used, and disclosed personal information about Canadians for inappropriate purposes, in contravention of subsection 5(3)

An individual complained that the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) improperly collected and used her personal information by accessing her wireless internet connection to post messages on a white supremacist website. The OPC investigated whether the CHRC contravened sections 4 to 8 of the Privacy Act. The investigation first determined that the complainant's IP address, when linked to her identity via a subpoena, constituted personal information under section 3 of the Act. However, the OPC found no evidence that the CHRC ever collected or had knowledge of the complainant's personal information prior to the allegations. Technological experts suggested the association of the complainant's IP address with the CHRC was likely a third-party mismatch. Consequently, the Assistant Privacy Commissioner concluded there was no contravention of the Privacy Act.

• Whether the complainant's IP address constituted personal information under section 3 of the Privacy Act
• Whether the CHRC collected the complainant's personal information
• Whether the CHRC improperly used, disclosed, or retained the complainant's personal information in contravention of sections 4 to 8 of the Privacy Act

A complainant objected to the Law School Admission Council's (LSAC) requirement for Canadian students to provide fingerprints to write the Law School Admission Test (LSAT). LSAC, a US-based non-profit, argued it was outside PIPEDA's jurisdiction and its activities were educational. The Assistant Privacy Commissioner found sufficient links to Canada for PIPEDA to apply and determined LSAC's activities were administrative, not educational. Applying a four-part test, the Assistant Commissioner found fingerprinting was not demonstrably necessary, effective, or proportional, and less privacy-invasive alternatives existed. LSAC agreed to cease fingerprint collection but reserved the right to reinstate it, proposing photographic evidence instead. The Assistant Commissioner found the complaint well-founded due to the disproportionate nature of fingerprint collection and LSAC's reservation to reinstate the policy.

• Whether LSAC's activities fall within the scope of PIPEDA despite its non-profit status and US location
• Whether LSAC's activities are educational in nature or serve administrative needs
• Whether the collection of thumbprints is demonstrably necessary to meet a specific need
• Whether the collection of thumbprints is likely to be effective in meeting that need
• Whether the loss of privacy from thumbprint collection is proportional to the benefit gained
• Whether there is a less privacy-invasive way of achieving the same end as thumbprint collection
• Whether the collection of photographs as an alternative is acceptable under PIPEDA
• Whether LSAC's reservation of the right to reinstate its fingerprint policy is compliant with PIPEDA

The OPC investigated Ticketmaster Canada Limited (TM) following a complaint that its practices for collecting, disclosing, and using customer personal information for marketing purposes did not comply with PIPEDA. The complainant alleged that customers were not properly informed or given a viable alternative to sharing their information for marketing. The Assistant Privacy Commissioner found that TM failed to uphold the principles of openness and consent. TM subsequently revised its privacy policy and online notifications to explicitly communicate information sharing practices and provide clear opt-in options for marketing. The investigation concluded that the issues were resolved satisfactorily, but the Assistant Commissioner expressed concern about the well-founded violations several years after PIPEDA's enactment.

• Whether Ticketmaster's privacy policy met the openness principle of PIPEDA
• Whether Ticketmaster obtained valid consent for the use of personal information for marketing purposes
• Whether customers were properly informed about the use of their personal information for marketing
• Whether customers were provided a viable opt-in/opt-out option for marketing without penalty
• Whether Ticketmaster's agreements with event providers ensured compliance with customer preferences

A client sought access to her personal information from her former lawyer. The lawyer refused access, citing outstanding fees and asserting a solicitor's lien on the client's file, believing that providing access could jeopardize payment. The OPC noted that PIPEDA's subsection 9(3) provides an exhaustive list of reasons for refusing access, which does not include a solicitor's lien. Therefore, lawyers must grant access to personal information even if a valid lien exists. The OPC suggested that allowing the individual to view, but not copy, the information could balance the right to access with the lien. The lawyer subsequently provided a complete copy of the file, and the complaint was settled.

• Whether a solicitor's lien is a valid ground to refuse access to personal information under PIPEDA
• Whether subsection 9(3) of PIPEDA provides an exhaustive list of circumstances for refusing access

The Privacy Commissioner of Canada launched an investigation into SWIFT SCRL following allegations that it disclosed personal information originating from or transferred to Canadian financial institutions to the US Department of the Treasury (UST) via administrative subpoenas. SWIFT provides messaging services to financial institutions globally, and some messages contain personal information. The Commissioner determined that SWIFT was subject to PIPEDA due to its operations and significant presence in Canada. While acknowledging SWIFT's compliance with US laws, the Commissioner found that SWIFT had not contravened PIPEDA, as the Act allows for disclosure without consent in response to a subpoena from a body with jurisdiction to compel information. The Commissioner emphasized that organizations operating in Canada must still abide by PIPEDA, even when subject to foreign laws. She also recommended that US authorities use existing information-sharing mechanisms with built-in privacy protections rather than subpoenas for Canadian-related financial information.

• Whether SWIFT is subject to PIPEDA
• Whether SWIFT contravened PIPEDA by disclosing personal information to the US Department of the Treasury
• Whether the exception to consent for disclosures in response to a subpoena applies

An individual complained that a department store's method of collecting tax exemption information allowed other customers to view her personal data and the data of previous customers. The store used a petition-style form where customers wrote their names, shopping dates, and tax exemption numbers, making this information visible to subsequent customers. The complainant was concerned about the lack of privacy for her personal information. In response to the complaint, the department store first implemented a temporary measure of using a new form where only one customer's information appeared per page. Subsequently, the store reconfigured its cash registers to electronically print a receipt-style form for tax exemptions, which was then completed by the customer and securely stored in the register. This new electronic system prevented customers from viewing each other's personal information. The complainant was satisfied with these changes, and the matter was considered settled.

• Whether the department store's method of collecting tax exemption information allowed unauthorized disclosure of personal information to other customers
• Whether the department store adequately safeguarded customers' personal information

An individual complained that a DVD-rental store required him to provide his driver's license details for entry into their database to become a member, which he believed was unnecessary. The store initially argued this was a business necessity for identity verification and recovering overdue rentals. However, the investigation revealed the store did not use driver's license data for tracing members, but rather publicly available information. Recognizing it was collecting unnecessary information, the store revised its membership process. Under the new process, customers must present two pieces of identification, one with a photo, but driver's license details are no longer entered into the database. The store committed to updating its procedures and training staff on the new process.

• Whether collecting and recording driver's license details was necessary for the DVD-rental store's operations
• Whether the store's collection practices aligned with the principle of limiting collection to necessary information