Skip to content

Privacy practice tune-up – getting ready for the Consumer Privacy Protection Act

Rob Aske

As we wrote about earlier, Canada’s federal government has proposed a replacement to our national privacy law for commercial transactions known as the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (“PIPEDA”).

The new bill is the Digital Charter Implementation Act, and this bill in turn would create a new Consumer Privacy Protection Act (“CPPA”) which would replace the privacy portion of PIPEDA.

The CPPA will likely not come into force for a year or more, while consultations and the drafting of regulations proceed.

However, the proposed CPPA does restate and expand on the existing privacy law requirements of PIPEDA, and if your business needs a privacy tune-up then CPPA can provide a useful guide, with better detail than PIPEDA offers now.

Privacy management program

For example, CPPA requires all organizations (including businesses) to implement a “privacy management program” including policies, practices and procedures for protection of personal information, complaints handling, training of personnel and for explaining these practices to the public. This program must take into account the “volume and sensitivity of the personal information” under the organization’s control.

CPPA also obliges an organization to provide the federal Privacy Commissioner with access to all policies, practices and procedures of its privacy management program, merely upon request, which of course could give the Commissioner a good look into any program gaps. If the Commissioner has reasonable grounds to believe that a breach of privacy obligations has occurred, then the Commissioner may choose to “audit” these practices.

Further detail on consent

The required consent for use of personal information is also described in CPPA in greater detail, and states that consent is only valid if at or before the time that the organization seeks the individual’s consent, it provides the following information in “plain language”:

(a) the purposes for the collection, use or disclosure;

(b) the way in which the personal information is to be collected, used or disclosed;

(c) any reasonably foreseeable consequences of the collection, use or disclosure of the personal information;

(d) the specific type of personal information that is to be collected, used or disclosed; and

(e) the names of any third parties or types of third parties to which the organization may disclose the personal information.

Consent must be obtained at or before collection, and must be express unless it is appropriate to rely on implied consent, taking into account the reasonable expectations of the individual and the sensitivity of the personal information.

Plain language privacy policies

CPPA also gives clearer guidance on privacy policies to be made available to customers and others providing personal information, which must again be in “plain language” and include at least the following:

(a) a description of the type of personal information under the organization’s control;

(b) a general account of how the organization makes use of personal information, including how the organization applies any permitted exceptions;

(c) a general account of the organization’s use of any automated decision system (e.g. AI systems) to make predictions, recommendations or decisions about individuals that could have significant impacts on them;

(d) whether or not the organization carries out any international or interprovincial transfer or disclosure of personal information that may have reasonably foreseeable privacy implications;

(e) how an individual may make a request for disposal or access; and

(f) the business contact information for your privacy officer.

While the policy requirements above about automated decision systems and international and interprovincial transfers are part of many policies now, they are new as express requirements of the law.

Therefore, all businesses that may be considering a tune-up of their privacy practices and policies should review the standards as outlined in the proposed CPPA, including those above.


This article is provided for general information only. If you have any questions about the above, please contact a member of our Privacy group.

Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership articles and updates.

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