The Privacy Commissioner is committed to her mandate to inform the public and stakeholders about Canada's privacy law. In this section, you will find case summaries of the Commissioner's findings on complaints made under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA).

The case summaries offer concrete examples of, and guidance on, how PIPEDA applies to the day-to-day management of personal information by organizations. The subject of the complaints is varied, ranging from privacy of health information, to financial confidentiality, to personal information-handling practices of different organizations.

Please note that these case summaries are intended to provide examples for public education purposes, but we do not post them for all findings under PIPEDA. In certain cases, for example, when a summary dealing with this subject is already on the Web site or there is limited educational value, we may decide not to post a case summary.

In this section, complainants are not named. The organizations in question are not identified unless the Commissioner has deemed it in the public interest to do so.

• Summaries of findings under PIPEDA

Definitions for each category of finding under PIPEDA

In keeping with the ombudsman role of the Privacy Commissioner, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner has been increasingly focusing its investigations efforts on resolving, or settling complaints to the satisfaction of all parties, without always issuing formal findings under PIPEDA.

Starting in January 2004, we introduced two new types of complaints dispositions: Settled during the course of the investigation and early resolution.

• Not well-founded: There is no evidence to lead the Commissioner to conclude that the complainant's rights under the Act have been contravened.
• Well-founded: The organization failed to respect a provision of the Act.
• Resolved: The allegations raised in the complaint were substantiated by the investigation, but the organization agreed to take corrective measures to rectify the problem, to the satisfaction of this Office.
• Well-founded and resolved: The Commissioner, being of the view at the conclusion of the investigation that the allegations were likely supported by the evidence, before making a finding made a recommendation to the organization for corrective action to remedy the situation, which the organization took or committed to take.
• Settled: This disposition is used when the Office has helped negotiate a solution during the course of the investigation that satisfies all involved parties. The Commissioner does not issue a finding.
• Discontinued: Investigation is terminated before all the allegations have been fully investigated, for example when the complainant is no longer interested in pursuing the matter, or can no longer be located to provide additional information that is critical to reaching a conclusion.
• No jurisdiction: The investigation led to a conclusion that PIPEDA did not apply to the organization or activity that was the subject of the complaint.
• Early resolution: This applies to situations where the issue was dealt with before a formal investigation occurred. For example, if an individual filed a complaint about a type of issue that the OPC had already investigated and found to comply with PIPEDA, we would explain this to the individual. “Early resolution” would also describe a situation where an organization, on learning of allegations against it, addressed them immediately to the satisfaction of the complainant and the OPC.
• No report prepared pursuant to subsection 13(2): The Commissioner is not required to prepare a report if certain conditions are met: (a) the complainant ought first to exhaust grievance or review procedures otherwise reasonably available; (b) the complaint could more appropriately be dealt with, initially or completely, by means of a procedure provided for under the laws of Canada or the laws of a province; (c) the length of time that has elapsed between the date when the subject-matter of the complaint arose and the date when the complaint was filed is such that a report would not serve a useful purpose; or (d) the complaint is trivial, frivolous or vexatious or is made in bad faith. If she does not prepare a report, the Commissioner informs the complainant and the organization and gives reasons.