Canada Case Law

Clearview AI Inc. v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner)

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

PIPA constitutionally applies to Clearview because its systematic, location‑indifferent scraping and prior business dealings with BC create a real and substantial connection; the Commissioner reasonably interpreted the PIPA exemptions narrowly so that social media scraping is not "publicly available" under the Regulations and Clearview lacked a reasonable purpose that would negate consent; the Commissioner's remedial order was a reasonable, enforceable exercise of discretion and is upheld.

Source excerpt

• Extraterritorial application of provincial statute
• Real and substantial connection test
• Publicly available exemption
• Reasonable purpose test
• Remedial discretion and enforceability

Read case analysis

Noble v. Synergy Credit Union Ltd.

Court

Federal Court

Federal Court dismissed most of a PIPEDA application against Synergy Credit Union Ltd., finding no proven ongoing privacy breach and no damages, but ordered limited account and membership records produced.

• Pipeda schedule 1 principles
• Access to personal information
• Limiting collection and retention
• Corrective measures and compliance
• Exceptions to consent (s.7 pipeda)
• Remedies and damages under pipeda

Read case analysis

Cleaver v. The Cadillac Fairview Corporation Limited

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed certification of a proposed privacy class action over mall directories, finding no factual basis that facial images or biometric data were recorded or identifiable.

• Intrusion upon seclusion
• Admissibility of expert evidence
• Pipeda and provincial privacy statutes
• Québec privacy law (ccq and private sector act)
• Class certification requirements (s.4 cpa)
• Identifiable class and self-identification

Read case analysis

Clearview AI Inc. v. Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed Clearview AI’s judicial review and upheld the Commissioner’s order under BC PIPA, finding jurisdiction, interpretation, and remedies reasonable.

• Pipa interpretation
• Publicly available information
• Reasonable purpose
• Jurisdiction/extraterritoriality
• Orders and remedies
• Charter values

Read case analysis

Canada (Privacy Commissioner) v. Facebook, Inc.

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that Facebook breached PIPEDA by failing to obtain meaningful consent from both app installers and their friends and by failing to adequately safeguard user information (Schedule 1 cl.4.3, cl.4.7 and s.6.1); the Federal Court erred in requiring subjective and expert evidence rather than applying an objective reasonable-person standard and in failing to assess friends’ consent separately; declaration of breach issued and parties directed to negotiate remedial orders with the Court to remain seized.

Source excerpt

• Meaningful consent
• Safeguarding obligations
• Platform intermediary liability
• Evidence and standard of review
• Remedies and supervisory orders

Read case analysis

Parker v. Ontario Medical Association

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court dismissed a judicial review challenge to the OPC’s refusal to investigate an OMA physician overhead study, finding the proposed disclosure was not commercial activity under PIPEDA.

• Pipeda
• Commercial activity
• Statistical research exception
• Consent
• Jurisdiction of privacy commissioner
• Data disclosure to statistics canada

Read case analysis

James v. Amazon.com.ca, Inc.

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The appeal is dismissed because the Federal Court correctly found, on the evidence, that Amazon did not violate PIPEDA by withholding access where the appellant's identity could not be verified, there was no evidentiary basis to find inaccuracies in the information, and no legal or palpable and overriding errors were made in the Federal Court's analysis.

Source excerpt

• Pipeda s.14
• Principle 9 individual access
• Principle 6 accuracy of information
• Identity verification
• Timeliness of response
• Standard of review

Read case analysis

James v. Amazon.com.ca, Inc.

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court dismissed Tamara James’s PIPEDA application, finding Amazon could require identity verification before disclosing personal information and that no breach was proven.

• Access to personal information
• Authentication
• Accuracy of personal information
• Pipeda s.14 jurisdiction
• Timeliness of access requests
• Security safeguards

Read case analysis

Winder v. Marriott International, Inc.

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The pleaded facts disclose only failures by Marriott to secure customer data and exposure of that data to unauthorized third-party hackers; there are no material facts alleging Marriott itself disclosed or used the information contrary to the customers' expectations, and thus the claim does not disclose the tort of intrusion upon seclusion because the tort requires a direct unauthorized intrusion by the defendant, not constructive intrusion arising from inadequate data security.

Source excerpt

• Intrusion upon seclusion
• Data breach
• Negligence
• Breach of contract
• Certification motion
• Consent to data collection

Read case analysis

Chow v. Facebook, Inc.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed certification of a proposed class action alleging Facebook scraped Android Messenger call and text data and violated privacy, unjust enrichment, and unlawful means claims.

• Data scraping
• Informed consent
• Android os permissions
• Privacy act s.1
• Certification criteria (cpa s.4)
• Privacy-law

Read case analysis