Waxer v. J.J. Barnicke Limited

Waxer v. J.J. Barnicke Limited

There was no evidence that any personal information of the applicant was actually collected; an unsuccessful attempt to obtain information does not constitute "collection" under PIPEDA (following Morgan); the accountability complaint was found by the Commissioner to be resolved by the respondent's adoption of compliant policies and therefore does not justify damages, so the application is dismissed.

Citation
2009 FC 169
Parties
Applicant: Mark Waxer; Respondent: Peter McCarthy; Respondent: J.J. Barnicke Limited; Added Respondent: The Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 February 2009
Procedural Posture
PIPEDA S.14 Application for Court Hearing / Federal Court Hearing and Reasons and Judgment (dismissed)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
PIPEDA, Collection of Personal Information, Attempted Collection, Accountability Principle, Damages for Humiliation
Source Language
English
Privacy Law Administrative Law Statutory Interpretation Civil Remedies PIPEDA Collection of Personal Information Attempted Collection Accountability Principle +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Waxer

Applicant

Peter McCarthy

Respondent

J.J. Barnicke Limited

Respondent

The Privacy Commissioner of Canada

Added Respondent

Procedural Posture

PIPEDA S.14 Application for Court Hearing / Federal Court Hearing and Reasons and Judgment (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondents obtained personal information in a manner contrary to PIPEDA
  2. 2 Whether an attempt to collect personal information constitutes "collection" under PIPEDA
  3. 3 Whether applicant is entitled to damages for collection or accountability breaches

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence that any personal information of the applicant was actually collected; an unsuccessful attempt to obtain information does not constitute "collection" under PIPEDA (following Morgan); the accountability complaint was found by the Commissioner to be resolved by the respondent's adoption of compliant policies and therefore does not justify damages, so the application is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for judicial review is dismissed.
  • Costs are awarded to each of the Respondents, Peter McCarthy and J.J. Barnicke Limited.