Welcome to PrivacyInfo.ca, a site maintained by Professor Michael Geist of the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law. The site features summaries of all of the Canadian Privacy Commissioner's decisions under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) . While those decisions are available in full-text on the Commissioner's site, this site provides additional search functionality, including full-text searches as well as searching by individual provisions, sector, and outcome.
The site also contains links to Canadian privacy legislation, privacy law news, and other resources. For regular updates of new decisions and additions to the site, click here.
This site is not affiliated in any way with the Canadian Privacy Commissioner's office. It is provided for informational purposes only and should not be treated or relied upon as legal advice.
Earlier this week, Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre attracted considerable attention by raising the privacy concerns associated with Google Street View. Poilievre was quoted asking "is there going to be a mass database of people's images? What are the benefits to Canada of allowing this to occur?" The original article states that:
Poilievre said he is particularly concerned about the original versions of those images that will be archived by Google. The original versions of the images will not be blurred. He said they could pose a privacy risk for Canadians if they somehow leaked out. He also questioned where the images would be stored and whether privacy laws could protect Canadians if the images were stored on a foreign computer server.
Poilievre appears to have had a change of heart. His concerns are not that Canadian privacy law is too weak to address these issues, but rather that it is too strong. In a National Post op-ed, Poilievre is now concerned that Canadian privacy law might create a barrier to Google Street View. He starts by noting:
The presence of Google’s Street View in Canadian cities is great news. It will showcase our urban life and attract tourists. It will allow parents to preview potential living conditions, as their kids leave the nest to go to university. It will bring us in line with American, European and Asians cities that have hosted this service since 2007.
While he earlier stated that he was concerned about storing the original images archived by Google (which the Privacy Commissioner rightly states involves issues of consent and correction of inaccuracies), he now worries that "Google could not store the images of the thousands of people it photographs without the prior permission of each and every one of them. That would be impossible, not to mention ridiculous."
So what does Poilievre actually want? He now says the law needs to be updated to create an exemption for photographic mapping systems. He concludes that "if the law does not accommodate this useful and popular service, then maybe the law needs fixing. The committee should come up with that fix now. Let’s get to work."
Poilievre fails to mention that his committee already spent months looking at Canadian private sector privacy law and developed many recommendations for reform in 2007, none of which have been implemented. Or he might mention that his committee spent months looking at the woefully outdated public sector privacy law but has yet to release a report and recommendations. If he is serious about addressing Canadian privacy law, he could address those issues, or the do-not-call disaster, or the absence of anti-spam legislation, or the cross-border data transfer concerns. There is plenty he can do now without trying to undo a balance that permits a service like Google Street View but provides Canadians with some basic privacy safeguards.
The Government has reintroduced legislation designed to address identity theft. The bill appeared in the last Parliament but died on the order paper. My original post on the last bill is here. I was scheduled to appear before the Justice Committee to discuss the bill, but the the committee was dysfunctional at the time as it battled over the Cadman affair.
The Ottawa Citizen reports that Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre is putting forward a motion to the Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics Committee for hearings into Google Street View.
An Ontario court has ordered the owners of the FreeDominion.ca to disclose all personal information on eight anonymous posters to the chat site. The required information includes email and IP addresses. The case arises from a lawsuit launched by Richard Warman, the anti-hate fighter, against the site and the posters. The court focused heavily on the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, which contain a strong duty of disclosure on litigants.
The discussion includes a review of many key Internet privacy cases, including the CRIA file sharing litigation (which the court distinguishes on the basis of different court rules) and the Irwin Toy case (which emphasized the importance of protecting anonymity, but which the court tries to distinguish on the basis of the newness of the issue at the time). The court also looks at the string of recent cases involving child pornography cases and ISP disclosure of customer information, concluding that "the court's most recent pronouncement on this is that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy."
According to the defendants in the case, they are unsure if they have the resources to appeal. This particular decision feels like a judge anxious to order to disclosure, despite the weight of authority that provides some measure of privacy protection for anonymous posters. Indeed, the public policy issue is characterized as "we are dealing with an anti-hate speech advocate and Defendants whose website is so controversial that it is blocked to employees of the Ontario Public Service." Leaving aside the fact that sites blocked to employees of the Ontario Public Service is not much of a threshold (Facebook is blocked to the OPS), the public policy issue is not the merits of the particular website. Rather, it is the privacy and free speech rights of the posters to that site.
Protection for anonymous postings is certainly not an absolute, but a high threshold that requires prima facie evidence supporting the plaintiff's claim is critical to ensuring that a proper balance is struck between the rights of a plaintiff (whether in a defamation or copyright case) and the privacy and free speech rights of the poster. I cannot comment on the postings themselves (and I recognize that Warman has been a frequent target online) but I fear that the high threshold seems to have been abandoned here, with the court all-too-eager to dismiss the privacy considerations associated with mandated disclosure by not engaging in an analysis as to whether the evidentiary standard was met.
CBC reports this evening that the RCMP is seeking backdoor wiretap access to Blackberry devices. The law enforcement agency is concerned that email messaging with the Blackberry is secure and encrypted which raises fears that it is widely used by criminal elements. Liberal MP Marlene Jennings touts her lawful access bill as the appropriate solution, while I respond with concerns about the impact on privacy and business. I also argue - as has long been the case in the lawful access discussion - that before jumping into legislation solutions, law enforcement must first demonstrate that the current laws have created a real impediment to their investigations.
The Saskatchewan government has dropped plans to introduce an enhanced drivers licence, citing cost and public interest concerns, including privacy and security questions about the EDL.
Canwest reports that the Privacy Commissioner of Canada is taking Air Canada to court to compel the airline to release records involving a so-called "unruly" customer, arguing passengers should be able to know the information air carriers are collecting about them.
posted
on Tue. Mar. 24/09
Site Last Updated: 2009-03-11 Copyright (c) 2003 Michael Geist
First (12/06/2007)
Previous
#17 of 27
Next 
Last (12/01/2009) 
