James v. Amazon.com.ca, Inc.

James v. Amazon.com.ca, Inc.

Applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that Amazon breached PIPEDA Principles 6 or 9 or the timeliness requirement; Amazon legitimately refused to disclose personal information because it could not authenticate the applicant’s identity and acted consistently with PIPEDA security safeguards; issues...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2023 FC 166
Parties
Applicant: Tamara James; Respondent: Amazon.com.ca, Inc.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Application Under PIPEDA S.14 / Judgment (dismissed)
Outcome
Application under section 14 of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act dismissed
Legal Topics
Access to Personal Information, Authentication, Accuracy of Personal Information, PIPEDA S.14 Jurisdiction, Timeliness of Access Requests, Security Safeguards
Source Language
english
Privacy Data Protection Administrative Law Access to Personal Information Authentication Accuracy of Personal Information PIPEDA S.14 Jurisdiction Timeliness of Access Requests +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 7 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tamara James

Applicant

Amazon.com.ca, Inc.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under PIPEDA S.14 / Judgment (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Amazon violated Principle 9 (Individual Access) of PIPEDA by denying access to personal information
  2. 2 Whether Amazon violated Principle 6 (Accuracy) of PIPEDA by holding inaccurate identity data
  3. 3 Whether Amazon failed to respond within 30 days under s.8(3) of PIPEDA

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that Amazon breached PIPEDA Principles 6 or 9 or the timeliness requirement; Amazon legitimately refused to disclose personal information because it could not authenticate the applicant’s identity and acted consistently with PIPEDA security safeguards; issues outside the complaint or Commissioner’s Report are not within s.14 jurisdiction; application dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application under section 14 of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act dismissed

Orders

  • Application under section 14 of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act dismissed
  • No costs awarded