Skip to content

Client Update: Does your business need a spring privacy tune-up? Breach reporting and Europe’s GDPR are about to hatch

Rob Aske

The arrival of spring should bring thoughts of renewal… to your privacy practices.

Breach reporting under PIPEDA

Canada’s federal privacy law known by the acronym PIPEDA (Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act) will now add privacy breach reporting as of November 1, 2018.

These breach reporting requirements were passed in 2015, but were not put into force as we waited for certain regulations to be proposed. But these regulations have now been published and with General Data Privacy Regulation coming in Europe in late May (see below), it was expected that Canada’s federal government would put the breach reporting provisions into force soon, and the November 1 implementation has just been announced.

The gist of the breach reporting obligations is as follows:

A business will be required to report to the Privacy Commissioner a breach involving personal information (“PI”) under its control, if it is reasonable to believe that the breach creates a real risk of significant harm to the individual.

Significant harm is defined to include humiliation, damage to reputation or relationships, loss of employment, business or professional opportunities, financial loss, identity theft, negative effects on credit record, and damage to or loss of property.

Factors relevant to the real risk of significant harm include sensitivity of the PI, and the probability that it may be misused.

The report to the Commissioner would need to describe the breach, when it occurred, the PI that is subject, the estimated number of individuals affected, and the steps that the organization is taking in response.

The business would also need to notify individuals whose PI is involved, if that breach creates a real risk of significant harm to the individual.

The notice to the individual would need to describe the breach, when it occurred, the PI affected, the steps the organization is taking, plus information about the business’ complaints process and the individual’s rights under PIPEDA.

The business could be obliged to notify other organizations or government if the business believes that these other bodies may be able to reduce the risk of harm.

Another big change with this new legislation is that businesses shall be obliged to keep and maintain records of EVERY breach of security safeguards involving PI; i.e. whether or not it meets any particular harm test. In addition, businesses must, on request, provide the Commissioner with access to copies of these records.

In other words (cynically speaking), businesses will be obliged to maintain records which will help the Commissioner and any claimant build a case against the business.

The regulations require records of breach to be maintained for 24 months after the date that the business determined that the breach occurred. In addition, these records, must enable the Commissioner to verify compliance with the business’ reporting obligations to the Commissioner and to individuals, if there has been a breach which creates a real risk of significant harm.

Any breach of these obligations may result in the business being charged with an offence, which could result in a fine not exceeding $100,000.

The obligation to report privacy breaches is not new to many jurisdictions, but will be new to much of Canada, and compels every business to tune up their privacy practices. And if your business deals with European customers, there’s more….

Europe’s General Data Privacy Regulation (“GDPR”) in force on May 25, 2018

This new law applies to both “controllers” and “processors” of PI. Controllers are those front line organizations (visible to the customer) that determine the purposes and means of processing PI, while a processor may process PI on behalf of the controller.

The GDPR can apply to a business which may not be established in the European Union (“EU”), if that business is offering goods and services to EU residents.

The GDPR takes individual consent to a higher level, requiring a freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the individual’s wishes, by which they offer a “clear affirmative action” to confirm their agreement to processing of their PI. Any PI collection must be specific, explicit and for legitimate purposes, and PI cannot be further processed in a manner that is not compatible with those purposes. Most interpret the GDPR’s consent provisions as requiring a positive opt-in, which is separate from other terms and conditions. The language must be plain. The right to withdraw must be as easy as giving consent, and must be available at any time. A child below 16 years must provide the consent of their parent or guardian.

Individuals have the right to obtain from controllers information about the processing of their PI including purposes of processing, categories of PI involved, recipients of PI, the period of retention, the identity of third parties providing any of the PI, and more.

EU residents will now have the so-called “right to be forgotten”, which requires the controller to erase PI without undue delay, provided that the PI is no longer necessary, and certain other conditions are met. Individuals will also have right to data portability, requiring controllers to transmit data to other controllers.

Processors may have potential direct liability, even though they may only be acting for the controller, and may not have any relationship with the individuals whose personal data is involved.

The GDPR also has obligations to notify individuals of data breach, similar terms to those outlined for PIPEDA above.

The GDPR gives individuals the right to an effective judicial remedy if their privacy rights have been infringed, including the right to receive compensation from the controllers and processors. The privacy authorities also have the right to levy fines for breach, which in some cases can go as high as €20 million, or 4% of total worldwide annual revenue for the preceding financial year, whichever is higher.

So if your organization has potential exposure in dealing with PI of Europeans, a close look at the obligations under GDPR is likely warranted.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Can an employer prohibit tattoos and piercings?

January 21, 2016

By Peter McLellan, QC In the 1970s the issue for employers was long hair and sideburns. In the 1980’s it was earrings for men. Today the employer’s concerns are with tattoos and facial piercings. What are…

Read More

Settling for it: Two new NS decisions on settlement agreements and releases

January 15, 2016

By Jennifer Taylor Introduction It sounds simple: Two disputing parties, hoping to resolve their disagreement without drawn-out court proceedings, will mutually agree to a settlement on clear terms; release each other from all claims; and move…

Read More

Labour and Employment Legislative Update 2015

December 23, 2015

2015 ends with changes in workplace laws that our region’s employers will want to be aware of moving into 2016. Some legislation has been proclaimed and is in force, some has passed and will be…

Read More

Client Update: Make Your List and Check it Twice: IRAC Sends a Holiday Reminder to Municipalities

December 23, 2015

The Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission (the “Commission”) has issued a holiday reminder to municipalities in Prince Edward Island about the importance of preparation, accuracy, and transparency when making decisions related to land use and…

Read More

Nova Scotia Government Introduces Public Services Sustainability (2015) Act

December 16, 2015

By Brian G. Johnston, QC On the same day that the Nova Scotia government announced its projected deficit had ballooned to $241 million, it also introduced Bill 148, the Public Services Sustainability (2015) Act (“Act”). The stated purposes…

Read More

Striking down the Nova Scotia Cyber-safety Act: The 10 most interesting things about Crouch v Snell

December 16, 2015

By Jennifer Taylor – Research Lawyer Nova Scotia’s Cyber-safety Act1 is no more, after a successful Charterchallenge to the legislation. In Crouch v Snell, 2015 NSSC 340, Justice McDougall of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia found the entire statute—enacted in…

Read More

Forsythe v Westfall: Forum of Necessity & Access to Justice

December 1, 2015

By Jennifer Taylor Introduction: Did Ontario have jurisdiction? Arguments about access to justice are not enough to oust the general principles of jurisdiction, according to a recent Ontario case. In Forsythe v Westfall, 2015 ONCA 810, the…

Read More

Client Update: Nova Scotia Court of Appeal Substantially Reduces Punitive Damages in LTD Case (Plus a Primer on the New Nova Scotia Limitations Act)

November 23, 2015

PART I: THE NSCA DECISION IN BRINE “Disability insurance is a peace of mind contract”: that’s the opening line of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal’s long-awaited decision in Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc…

Read More

Client Update: Taxation of Trusts, Estates and Charitable Donation Rules Changing January 1, 2016

November 18, 2015

The taxation of estates, testamentary trusts and certain “life interest trusts” such as alter ego, joint partner and spousal trusts, and the rules for charitable donations made on death through an estate are changing significantly…

Read More

Update on New Tax Rules for Charitable Giving

November 18, 2015

Several important changes in the tax rules that apply to charitable gifts will be coming into effect in the near future. Some of the new rules take effect in 2016, and others will apply beginning…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top