This document summarizes privacy law cases and rulings from 2009-2010. It discusses notable cases involving Facebook, targeted advertising without consent, and video surveillance. It also summarizes rulings related to video monitoring of bus drivers, disclosure of insurance information to third parties, and whether certain types of information like email addresses posted online constitute "publicly available information." The document also provides an overview of two court challenges related to the interpretation of privacy laws.

1. elder
Communications & Privacy Law
A Year in Privacy
Highlights from the Courts and the
Commissioner
Meeting Your Privacy Obligations, Canadian Institute, Toronto
12 May 2010 © David Elder 2010 1

2. The Blockbusters
Facebook
Case Summary #2009-010
 Ads not always “secondary purposes”
 Issues with third party applications, deletion/deactivation, protection of info re
deceased users and non-users
Abika
Case Summary #2009-009
 Principle 4.6 intended primarily to address matters of objective, verifiable fact, not
subjective opinion
 Collection without consent, no disclosed purposes
Deep Packet Inspection
Case Summary #2009-010
 Use of DPI for network management purposes is acceptable with appropriate notice
and implied consent,
12 May 2010 © David Elder 2010 2

3. Festival Circuit
Data Augmentation (Case Summary #2009-004)
 Matching/sorting of publicly available personal information with
geo-demographic data does not require consent
Publicly Available Information (Case Summary #2009-13)
 eMail address posted on website may be “public available
information”
ID Verification (Case Summary # 2009-012)
 Verification of non-suspicious ID not required
Compliance with Subpoena or Warrant (Case Summary # 2009-005)
 Summons requiring appearance in court does not authorize direct
disclosure of personal information without consent
Consent for Collection (Case Summary #2009-007)
 Innocent 3d parties filmed by PI Consent or depersonalization
required
12 May 2010 © David Elder 2010 3

4. B Movies & Made-for-TV
• Bus terminal video surveillance OK with notice
Case Summary #2009-001
• Realtor advertises condo purchase price without consent
Case Summary #2009-002
• Disclosure by insurer to 3rd party medical consultants of claimant’s
medical files
Case Summary #2009-003
• Airline need not collect birth date and month for travel insurance
Case Summary #2009-006
• MDT and GPS in buses OK – not used to monitor employee
performance
Case Summary 2009-011
• Driver’s Licence collection not required for store membership
Case Summary #2009-14
12 May 2010 © David Elder 2010 4

5. From the Bench
State Farm v. The Privacy Commissioner of Canada et al., Federal Court
of Canada T-604-09 (pending)
 Does “commercial activity” require a direct commercial relationship
between individual and organization?
 Is PIPEDA beyond jurisdiction of Parliament?
Privacy Commissioner of Canada v. Air Canada, 2010 FC 429 (T.D.)
 OPC has no right to particulars of information for which privilege
claimed
R v. Wilson, [2009] O.J. No. 1067 (S.C.J.) (QL)
 No reasonable expectation of privacy, for Charter purposes, where
service provider agreement, privacy policy contemplates disclosure to
law enforcement
12 May 2010 © David Elder 2010 5

6. From the Bench
R. v. Chehil, [2009] N.S. J. No. 505 (N.S.C.A) (QL), 2009 NSCA 111, 248
C.C.C. (3d) 370
 PIPEDA does not create a reasonable expectation of privacy for purposes
of s.8 - Charter protection only for “biographical core” or specific and
meaningful private information
Waxer v. McCarthy [2009] F.C.J. No. 252 (T.D.) (QL)
 unsuccessful attempt to collect personal information did not amount to
collection under Act
Speevak v. CIBC , [2010] O.J. No. 770 (QL), 2010 ONSC 1128
 Settled class action respecting repeatedly misdirected faxes containing
sensitive financial information
12 May 2010 © David Elder 2010 6

7. elder
Communications & Privacy Law
www.davidelder.ca
12 May 2010 © David Elder 2010 7