Skip to content

Client Update: It’s here now! Breach reporting for Canadian businesses under PIPEDA

Rob Aske

You likely heard rumblings over the spring and summer, but now it’s here. Canada’s federal privacy law known by the acronym PIPEDA (Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act) adds privacy breach reporting as of November 1, 2018.

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 (including with a service provider) if it is reasonable to believe that the breach creates a real risk of significant harm to the individual. (The Privacy Commissioner notes that it does not matter if it is one or thousands of affected persons).

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.

Your 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.

Reports must be made “as soon as feasible after the breach”. The express goal is in part to reduce risks of harm, so reports may need to be made well before the full story of the breach is known.

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. (So 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 sharpen their privacy practices – because going public with a breach can make the impact a much larger mess.

You can find the federal Privacy Commissioner’s Guidelines on reporting breaches here.


This update is intended for general information only. If you have questions about the above information, please contact Rob Aske, or a member of our information technology, internet and privacy group.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Charter-ing a Different Course? Two decisions on TWU’s proposed law school

August 11, 2016

Jennifer Taylor Introduction Appeal courts in Ontario1 and Nova Scotia2 have now issued decisions about Trinity Western University’s proposed law school (“TWU”) in British Columbia, and at first glance they couldn’t be more different. The Court of Appeal for…

Read More

Restart the Clock!: Confirmation and resetting limitation periods in Tuck v. Supreme Holdings, 2016 NLCA 40

August 11, 2016

Joe Thorne1 and Giles Ayers2 Limitation periods serve a critical function in the civil justice system. They promote the timely resolution of litigation on the basis of reliable evidence, and permit litigants to assess their legal exposure…

Read More

Client Update: SCC issues major decision affecting federal employers: Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited

July 15, 2016

On July 14, 2016 the Supreme Court of Canada issued a significant decision affecting federally regulated employers across Canada. In Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited the Court held that the purpose of the unjust dismissal…

Read More

Client Update: Requirement to register as a mortgage brokerage and mortgage administrator in New Brunswick

July 7, 2016

On April 1, 2016 New Brunswick’s Mortgage Brokers Act came into force, requiring businesses acting as mortgage brokerages or as mortgage administrators in New Brunswick to be licensed. A mortgage brokerage is a business that on behalf…

Read More

Copyright does not monopolize facts – documentary filmmakers’ claim against book author and publisher fails

June 29, 2016

In May 2016, the Federal Court of Canada confirmed that copyright does not protect facts, even where a book’s author is clearly inspired by the content of a film (Maltz v. Witterick, 2016 FC 524 (CanLII)).…

Read More

Solicitor-client privilege vs the Canada Revenue Agency: the SCC speaks

June 10, 2016

By Jennifer Taylor “…firms of notaries or lawyers…must not be turned into archives for the tax authorities”1 So says the Supreme Court of Canada in one of two highly anticipated decisions on solicitor-client privilege, offering lawyers…

Read More

Why can’t we be friends?: Lessons on corporate dissolution from Smith v. Hillier

May 30, 2016

Joe Thorne1 and Clara Linegar2 As joint owners of a business, what do you do when the business relationship falls apart? And what if one owner undermines the business in the process? In Smith v Hillier,3 Justice Paquette…

Read More

Client Update: Supreme Court of Canada dismisses appeals in punitive damages cases

May 26, 2016

The Supreme Court of Canada has dismissed the appeals in Bruce Brine v. Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc.1 (with costs) and Luciano Branco, et al. v. Zurich Life Insurance Company Limited, et al.(without costs). Both of…

Read More

Client Update: Pension update: Countdown to Nova Scotia Pooled Registered Pension Plans

May 17, 2016

On May 4, 2016, the Nova Scotia Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act (“PRPP Act”) was proclaimed in force, and finalized Pooled Registered Pension Plan Regulations were released. While there were no major changes from the previously released draft regulations, the proposed rules…

Read More

Pension Primer: Pooled Registered Pension Plans (“PRPPs”) in Nova Scotia

April 22, 2016

By Level Chan and Dante Manna Pooled Registered Pension Plans (“PRPPs”) are closer to becoming a reality for Nova Scotian employers. PRPPs were established by the Federal government in an effort to address the lack of retirement savings…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top