The Canadian Privacy Law Blog: Developments in privacy law and writings of a Canadian privacy lawyer, containing information related to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (aka PIPEDA) and other Canadian and international laws.
The author of this blog, David T.S. Fraser, is a Canadian privacy lawyer who practices with the firm of McInnes Cooper. He is the author of the Physicians' Privacy Manual. He has a national and international practice advising corporations and individuals on matters related to Canadian privacy laws.
For full contact information and a brief bio, please see David's profile.
The views expressed herein are solely the author's and should not be attributed to his employer or clients. Any postings on legal issues are provided as a public service, and do not constitute solicitation or provision of legal advice. The author makes no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained herein or linked to. Nothing herein should be used as a substitute for the advice of competent counsel.
This web site is presented for informational purposes only. These materials do not constitute legal advice and do not create a solicitor-client relationship between you and David T.S. Fraser. If you are seeking specific advice related to Canadian privacy law or PIPEDA, contact the author, David T.S. Fraser.
Wednesday, May 19, 2004
I recently blogged about PIPEDA and Video Surveillance, particularly in the insurance claims process. We are finally getting some guidance from the courts on how PIPEDA will be applied in litigation.
Since the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (“PIPEDA”) came into full effect on January 1, 2004, insurers have been concerned about what impact this legislation might have on their claims handling processes and the ability of claims personnel to order video surveillance of claimants. There has been a fair amount of uncertainty and, while the issues are not entirely resolved, we are beginning to receive some guidance on how the courts will deal with the intersection between privacy rights and litigation.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently issued a decision in the matter of Ferenczy v. MCI Medical Clinics. In this case, the insurer ordered video surveillance of the claimant, which was used at trial to impeach the claimant’s testimony. An objection was raised by the Plaintiff’s counsel on the basis that the video surveillance was conducted in violation of PIPEDA and should therefore be inadmissible in court. In the absence of the jury, Justice Dawson considered this issue and reached a number of notable conclusions.
PIPEDA applies with respect to personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in the course of “commercial activities.” When the law applies, it requires the knowledge and consent of the individual concerned for the collection, use or disclosure of his or her personal information. There are a number of exceptions to the consent principle contained in Section 7 of the statute.
Justice Dawson concluded that litigation of third-party claims is not “commercial activity” for the purposes of PIPEDA. (Please note that this is likely not the case for a first-party claim, such as under a disability policy or for Section B benefits.) Justice Dawson also concluded that, if PIPEDA applied, the Plaintiff implicitly consented to the collection of personal information via video surveillance by the act of putting forward the claim. Finally, Justice Dawson also concluded that the exception to the consent principle contained in Section 7(1)(b) was applicable.
Lawyers in our privacy and insurance law groups have been recently involved with a number of PIPEDA complaints against insurers initiated by plaintiff’s counsel. While the complaints are not yet resolved, insurers would be well advised to anticipate that such complaints may become commonplace until these matters are clearly resolved by the Privacy Commissioner or the Federal Court. It is possible that the Privacy Commissioner’s conclusions will differ from those of Justice Dawson, further complicating matters for insurers.
The Canadian Privacy Law Blog is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Canada License.