Englander v. Telus Communications Inc.

Englander v. Telus Communications Inc.
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2003-06-03
Neutral citation
2003 FCT 705
File numbers
T-1717-01
Notes
Digest
Decision Content
Date: 20030603
Docket: T-1717-01
Citation: 2003 FCT 705
Vancouver, British Columbia, Tuesday, the 3rd day of June, 2003
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BLAIS
BETWEEN:
MATHEW ENGLANDER
Applicant
and
TELUS COMMUNICATIONS INC.
Respondent
APPLICATION UNDER subsection 14(1) of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, S.C. 2000, c.5
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This is an application to the Court for a hearing pursuant to section 14 of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, S.C. 2000, c.5 [the PIPEDA] in respect of a report prepared by George Radwanski, Privacy Commissioner of Canada [the PCC] in response to a complaint filed under section 11 of the PIPEDA by the Applicant against the Respondent. In his report, the PCC concluded that all aspects of the Applicant's complaint are not well-founded.
FACTS
[2] The Applicant, Mathew Englander, is a lawyer residing in Vancouver, British Columbia and a customer of TELUS Communications Inc. [TELUS] for local residential telephone service.
[3] The Respondent, TELUS, is a company incorporated under the laws of Canada, which, inter alia, conducts the regulated telecommunications business for British Columbia and Alberta.
[4] TELUS is regulated by the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission [the CRTC]. As a result, the CRTC may, through tariffs or the terms of its decisions, impose conditions on TELUS' provision of service to its customers.
[5] The CRTC is required, pursuant to paragraph 47(a) of the Telecommunications Act, to exercise its powers in a way that ensures a balance in the public interest between cultural, social and economic goals of a telecommunications network and to ensure that all rates charged by TELUS for regulated services are just and reasonable.
[6] Pursuant to section 7 of the Telecommunications Act, it is an express part of the CRTC's mandate to consider privacy issues in regulating the telecommunications industry. Accordingly, the CRTC considers privacy issues, including the application of relevant privacy statutes, in setting tariffs and making orders in connection with the telecommunications industry.
[7] On June 25 1996, the CRTC was ordered by the Governor in Council to report on the matter of directory listings, including the appropriate level of privacy protection that should be accorded to subscriber listings and to provide an evaluation of Non-Published Number Service [NPNS].
[8] Following the receipt of submissions from various entities and public interest groups, the CRTC issued Telecom Order CRTC 98-109, in which it concluded, inter alia, that to set a cost-based rate for NPNS would fail to take adequate account of considerations such as the usefulness of a reasonably complete directory and the revenue impact of reduced rates. However, the CRTC also concluded that it would be inappropriate if monthly rates for NPNS for residential subscribers remained at levels that were established in the past, i.e. with a view to maximizing revenues available to subsidize basic residential service.
[9] The CRTC ultimately concluded that TELUS should provide unlisted number service at a rate not exceeding $2.00 per month for residential subscribers and ordered TELUS to file revised tariff pages specifying a rate not exceeding $2.00, which it did, and the CRTC approved that rate.
[10] The TELUS Privacy Code is based on the Canadian Standards Association's "Model Code for the Protection of Personal Information" [the CSA Model Code], which has now been incorporated in the PIPEDA.
[11] Since February 2000, the Applicant has subscribed for NPNS for his residential phone number. NPNS is a regulated telecommunications service. The tariff applicable in British Columbia is CRTC 1005, General Tariff Item 145. It provides that the monthly service charge for NPNS is $2.00, which rate was set following Telecom Order CRTC 98-109.
[12] In addition to the $2.00 monthly fee, TELUS charges a one-time $9.50 set up fee for NPNS in British Columbia. The set-up fee is referred to in Tariff Item 145 by reference to Tariff Item 110. The set-up fee is the data-processing fee found in paragraph B of Tariff Item 110.
[13] Accordingly, TELUS has charged the Applicant $10.16, including GST, when he first obtained an unlisted number, and subsequently has charged him $2.14 per month, including GST, for NPNS.
[14] During the four years prior to February 2000, the Applicant had a listed residential phone number and when he changed to NPNS, he did not change his phone number, which option was open to him. Accordingly, outdated directories include the Applicant's listing information.
[15] TELUS and its affiliates use and disclose the names, addresses, and telephone numbers appearing in a directory [the listing information] of TELUS customers through various services:
- Printed telephone directories commonly known as the White Pages. There is one annual White Pages for the region described as "Metro Vancouver" and there are several others covering sub-regions or neighbourhoods within Vancouver. Each White Pages includes the listing information of TELUS' customers residing in the applicable region or sub-region who have not subscribed for NPNS.
- When new customers subscribe for local residential service, they are automatically included in the directories unless they also subscribe for NPNS. If they subscribe for NPNS, their listing must be manually "flagged" to ensure that their listing information is not included with the information that is provided to directory assistance and for the purpose of printing the directory. NPNS accounts also require ongoing extra security and special handling. Thus, the provision of NPNS results in some additional costs to TELUS.
- Dial-in directory assistance commonly known as "411", which TELUS offers to members of the general public, generally for a fee.
- Internet directory assistance called "People Finder", also offered to members of the general public. It is a service provided by TELUS Advanced Services Inc., an affiliate of TELUS. This service also offers a reverse-lookup function, whereby a member of the general public can enter a telephone number and find out listing information associated with it. However, the listing information of TELUS customers who have subscribed for NPNS is not included in the database.
- Through services called Directory File Service and Basic Listing Interchange File Service, TELUS discloses, for a fee, listing information of its customers. The CRTC requires TELUS to provide these services to independent directory publishers and certain other organizations, pursuant to Tariff Items 23 and 210 in British Columbia.
- TELUS' directory publisher, Dominion Information Services Inc. [Dominion], provides selected listing information, for a fee, to selected organizations [List Services]. The listing information so provided excludes all information for TELUS customers who have subscribed for NPNS as well as for those who have requested to be "de-listed".
- Dominion also provides listing information in a CD-ROM format that can be purchased as a retail product under licence to anyone who wishes to purchase it. The CD-ROM can be used for reference only, has limited printout availability, and is copy protected and encrypted to avoid misuse. The licences provide that it cannot be used to publish alternate directories or to print the entire contents.
[16] The only information that is provided through these services is information that is publicly available and specified as such by regulations to the PIPEDA.
[17] TELUS customers have the option of becoming "de-listed". TELUS' privacy brochure advises customers of the de-listing option, as does a portion of the White Pages. There is no charge for de-listing. Once de-listed, the customer listing information will continue to be published in the White Pages, as well as through directory assistance and Directory File Service and Basic Listing Interchange Service; however, the customer's listing information will not be included by TELUS or Dominion in the information provided as List Services nor will it be included from subsequent issues of the CD-ROM, which are typically issued every three to four months.
[18] By letter dated January 1, 2001, the Applicant filed a complaint to the PCC pursuant to subsection 11(1) of the PIPEDA, against TELUS so that an investigation could be conducted and a report prepared.
[19] Beginning in January 2001, the Applicant has withheld $2.14 per month from the amount paid to TELUS. On October 26, 2001, he sent TELUS a payment of $21.04 under protest, along with a letter to serve as notice that any and all payments made in future to TELUS would also be under protest.
[20] The PCC investigated the complaint and distributed a report to the parties on August 14, 2001. The PCC concluded that TELUS's practices were not in violation of the PIPEDA and that all of the allegations in the complaint were not well-founded.
THE PCC'S REPORT
...
... Customers are verbally asked how they would like their personal information to appear in TELUS' White Pages directory. It is implied that telephone numbers are published in publicly available telephone directories, and if a customer chooses not to have a non-published telephone number they indirectly consent to having their telephone number published in publicly available directories. I am satisfied that TELUS obtains valid consent from its customers to publish their telephone number in publicly available White Pages at the time telephone service is initiated.
... This Office provided representations to the CRTC in 1998 regarding this issue, and the CRTC took them into consideration in arriving at a position. I have concluded that TELUS has the authority under CRTC Tariff to charge its customers $2.00 per month for non-published telephone service and I do not find this an unreasonable practice so as to contravene principle 4.3.3 of the Schedule.
...
Section 5(1): The complaint alleges that TELUS is not in compliance with the obligations set out in Schedule 1 of the Act. I have concluded that TELUS is in full compliance with the Act. Therefore, this allegation is not well-founded.
Section 5(3): The complaint alleges that TELUS collects, uses or discloses personal information for purposes other than those a reasonable person would consider appropriate in the circumstances. I have concluded that a reasonable person would consider TELUS' initiation of service practice and subsequent publishing of customers' personal information in TELUS' White Pages an appropriate collection, use and disclosure of the information. Thus, I have concluded that this allegation is not well-founded.
Clause 4.3, Schedule 1: The complaint alleges that TELUS does not obtain consent from its customers to publish their personal information in publicly available directories. I have concluded that TELUS' practice of initiating service includes obtaining valid consent from its customers to publish their personal information in its publicly available White Pages Directory. Thus, this allegation is not well-founded.
Clause 4.5, Schedule 1: The complaint alleges that TELUS uses and discloses personal information for purposes other than those for which it was collected. I have concluded that TELUS obtains valid consent to publish customers' personal information in its White Pages Directory and, by doing so, customers consent to having their personal information available to the public. TELUS only discloses publicly available information as specified by the Act under the Regulations Specifying Publicly Available Information to Dominion Information Services in BC, and TELUS Advertising Services in Alberta, and therefore, is in compliance with the Act. Thus, I have concluded that this allegation is not well-founded.
Clause 4.7, Schedule 1: The complaint alleges that TELUS does not protect its customers' personal information by security safeguards appropriate to the sensitivity of the information. I have found no evidence on which to base a conclusion that TELUS is not in compliance with the Act in this regard. Therefore, this allegation is not well-founded.
Clause 4.9, Schedule 1: The complaint alleges that upon request, TELUS cannot confirm the existence, use and disclosure of its customers' personal information by external publishing companies and, in light of this, TELUS customers cannot access their personal information to challenge its accuracy available information as specified by the Act under the Regulations Specifying Publicly Available Information to Dominion Information Services in BC, and TELUS Advertising Services in Alberta. Therefore, I have concluded that this allegation is not well-founded.
[emphasis added]
SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPLICANT
[21] The Applicant submits that the legal test under the PIPEDA is not whether a practice is unreasonable but whether it contravenes the specific provisions of the Act.
[22] Accordingly, the Applicant contends that the Respondent contravenes the PIPEDA by allowing its customers' listing information to be used without their knowledge and consent in various data banks.
[23] Furthermore, the Applicant submits that under the PIPEDA, express consent is required for TELUS to use or disclose its customers' listing information.
[24] The Applicant also argues that the Respondent's practice of charging customers for an unlisted number is not authorized by the PIPEDA.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
[25] The Respondent submits that the Applicant does not complain of the use or disclosure by TELUS of his personal information without his knowledge and consent and as such, he does not possess personal interest in the consent issue; the principle of interest standing does not have application in this proceeding, therefore the Applicant lacks standing on this issue.
[26] In any event, the Respondent submits that, where required by the PIPEDA, TELUS does obtain the consent of its residential customers, for its use and disclosure of their listing information.
[27] The Respondent alleges that the PIPEDA does not restrict TELUS from charging a fee for the provision of NPNS. In the alternative, if this Court finds that PIPEDA does restrict TELUS' ability to charge a fee for the provision of NPNS, it does so only to the extent that the fee is unreasonable. The Respondent however argues that the fee in question is reasonable.
ISSUES
1. Does TELUS have valid consent under the PIPEDA to publish its customers' personal information in TELUS directories?
2. Does the PIPEDA restrict TELUS from charging a fee for the provision of NPNS?
ANALYSIS
[28] The present application is made under section 14 of the PIPEDA, which provides that:
14. (1) A complainant may, after receiving the Commissioner's report, apply to the Court for a hearing in respect of any matter in respect of which the complaint was made, or that is referred to in the Commissioner's report, and that is referred to in clause 4.1.3, 4.2, 4.3.3, 4.4, 4.6, 4.7 or 4.8 of Schedule 1, in clause 4.3, 4.5 or 4.9 of that Schedule as modified or clarified by Division 1, in subsection 5(3) or 8(6) or (7) or in section 10.
[29] The present hearing is therefore not an appeal of the Commissioner's report, nor is it an application for judicial review in an administrative legal sense.
[30] Accordingly, I am required to exercise my own discretion de novo.
[31] As such, and if required, this Court has the power to order an organization to change a practice and to pay damages to the individual. (see the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement that accompanied the Regulations, Appendix A of the Respondent's Record, tab 7)
[32] In his Memorandum of Fact and Law, the Applicant submitted that no deference whatsoever should be given to the PCC's findings.
[33] While it is true that he is granted no statutory authority to impose his conclusions or recommendations, I believe that as a statutorily created administrator with specialized expertise, the PCC is entitled to some deference with respect to decisions clearly within his jurisdiction.
1. Does TELUS have valid consent under the PIPEDA to publish its customers' personal information in TELUS directories?
[34] The Respondent argues that the Applicant has tendered no evidence of TELUS collecting, using or disclosing any of his personal information without his consent, and therefore that he lacks standing. However, in accordance with subsection 14(1) of the PIPEDA, as stated above, any complainant may bring an application as long as its criteria are met.
[35] Furthermore, the Applicant has strongly demonstrated that he reluctantly complied with the requests from TELUS. Indeed, if he wanted to benefit from a NPNS, he had no choice.
[36] Therefore, compliance with the TELUS' requests should not jeopardize the Applicant's personal standing in this case.
[37] In my view, the Applicant has standing to bring this application.
[38] In his affidavit, Jim Brooks, TELUS Vice-President, Business Transformation, informs us of the procedure that is followed when a customer subscribes to a new telephone line. TELUS customer service representatives are instructed to indicate to customers that the telephone line includes a listing in TELUS directories; customers are asked how they would like their personal information to appear in the directories; and the representatives discuss privacy concerns and listing options with the customer if the customer expresses an interest in not being published. New customers also receive a welcoming letter with an accompanying brochure entitled "Our privacy Commitment to You". The brochure sets out, inter alia, the purposes for which TELUS collects, uses, and discloses customers' personal information. It also advises customers of their right to be de-listed.
[39] The White Pages specifically detail how TELUS uses personal information and the various privacy oriented service options provided by TELUS. They also indicate to whom TELUS discloses information and how a customer's information can be used. There are also specific instructions on how customers can withdraw their consent, verify or change their personal information at any time.
[40] Furthermore, TELUS maintains a toll free number which is dedicated to providing information to customers who wish to discuss privacy issues. TELUS also maintains a website where customers can obtain information about its privacy practices. In addition to those services, TELUS employs a full-time Privacy Officer who is accountable for privacy policies and practices.
[41] It is a long-standing and well established practice of telephone companies to include directory listings as part of residential telephone service. Thus, in addition to being notified of the fact by TELUS, customers have a reasonable expectation that unless they subscribe to NPNS, their listing information will be published in the phone directory. In obtaining consent, such reasonable expectation is a relevant consideration, as stated in clause 4.3.5 of Schedule 1 of the PIPEDA.
[42] Furthermore, the CRTC, in its Report to the Governor in Council on Directory Subscriber Listings and on Unlisted Number Service dated December 23, 1996, has expressly recognized:
The Commission considers that, as a result of this long-established practice, subscribers currently expect that, unless they request an unlisted number, their telephone numbers will be published in the telephone companies' directories and will be available through directory assistance. In the Commission's view, subscribers can be considered to have consented to this use if they initiate service without requesting an unlisted number.
(Respondent's Record, tab 1, page 110)
[43] I would like to emphasize the relevance of subsection 5(3) of the PIPEDA. When applied to the case at bar, it states that TELUS may collect, use or disclose personal information only for purposes that a reasonable person would consider appropriate in the circumstances. The Applicant has failed to convince me that TELUS was in violation of such provision.
[44] Not to mention that paragraphs 7(1)(d), 7(2)(c.1) and 7(3)(h.1) of the PIPEDA, combined with paragraph 1(a) of the Regulations Specifying Publicly Available Information [the Regulations], expressly provide that an organization may collect, use or disclose personal information without the knowledge or consent of the individual if the information is publicly available.
[45] The Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement that accompanied the Regulations includes the following statement:
...
... As a rule, individuals are able to decide for themselves with whom they will share personal information and under what circumstances. However, some personal information enters into the public sphere through a variety of channels, often include personal information that appears in telephone or other directories, ... This personal information is made public for a specific and primary purpose, e.g. individuals allow their name, address and telephone number to appear in the telephone or other directories to enable others to contact them for personal reasons, to enable potential clients to reach them in their professional capacity or to enable others to verify their title, membership or professional qualifications. ...
...
The Regulation is based on a recognition that some personal information is publicly available for a legitimate primary purpose, often with the individual's tacit agreement (e.g., the telephone directory, announcements). In these circumstances, it is reasonable to allow organizations to collect, use and disclose this information without adding the requirement to obtain consent. To require an organization to obtain consent to use this information for its primary purpose would not contribute to the protection of the individual's privacy, would add to the organization's costs and could frustrate some public policy purpose. However, it is also reasonable to insist that any purpose other than the primary one should be subject to the consent requirement. ...
...
Telephone Directories
One association pointed out that the exception for the telephone directory is based on the individual's ability to refuse to appear in the directory but that the refusal can only be exercised by paying for an unlisted number (this is a condition set by several of the telephone companies). They argue that this fee was an economic barrier to lower income people who may not wish to be listed but who cannot afford to exercise their right to refuse and suggested adding "without incurring any cost for such refusal". While this point may have validity from an access to services perspective, the use of fees is not specifically a protection of privacy issue.
An organization questioned whether the term "telephone directory" included information from Discovery Assistance or from online telephone directories that also provide the individual with a right of refusal to appear in the directory. The intention is to include such directories in the Regulation.
[46] Even if the parties have different views on what weight should be given to such "Impact Analysis Statement", nevertheless those are a strong indication of the purpose of such regulations.
[47] As such, I believe that once a TELUS representative has asked a new subscriber how he or she would like his or her listing information to appear in the telephone directory, it is open to that subscriber to enquire on the options available to him or her. If the privacy of such information is fundamental or simply desired by a subscriber, it is his or her responsibility to educate him or herself, either by asking the representative or through the various tools which have been put at the public's disposal by TELUS.
[48] Therefore, it is my conclusion that TELUS has valid consent under the PIPEDA to publish its customers' personal information in TELUS directories.
2. Does the PIPEDA restrict TELUS from charging a fee for the provision of NPNS?
[49] Through CRTC Telecom Decision 94-109, the CRTC has expressly recognized the social utility of the directory and has found that, inter alia, the provision of directories forms an essential part of, and significantly enhances the value of, the company's basic telephone service.
[50] Similarly, through the Regulations as well as the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement, the federal government has expressly recognized that directories serve legitimate purposes, of which the primary is to provide telephone network users with easy and accurate identification of subscriber telephone numbers.
[51] Therefore, and as justifiably stated by Mr Brooks, if there was no fee for NPNS, the demand for the service would increase causing a corresponding decrease in the comprehensiveness, and thus in the utility, of the directories.
[52] As stated earlier, when customers subscribe for NPNS, their listing information must be manually flagged and their accounts require ongoing extra security and special handling, thereby resulting in some additional costs to TELUS.
[53] Even more important is the fact that the issue of setting rates for NPNS with regard to privacy concerns has been resolved by the CRTC. Indeed, as previously mentioned, in June of 1996, the CRTC was ordered by the Governor in Council to report on the matter of directory listings, including the appropriate level of privacy protection that should be accorded to subscriber listings and to provide an evaluation of NPNS. On February 4, 1998, the CRTC issued its decision on rates for unlisted service in Telecom Order CRTC 98-109. Also noteworthy, is the fact that at paragraph 13 of the above order, the CRTC specifically addressed the argument of the privacy advocates as to the fact that there should be no charge for the service.
[54] In Telecom Order CRTC 98-109, the CRTC struck a balance among the various competing interests:
22. The Commission encourages the telephone companies to provide as much flexibility as possible, but considers that affording subscribers complete flexibility as to how their listings appear in directories and in directory assistance databases could undermine the usefulness of the directory and complicate the provision of directory assistance.
...
31. Based on the information filed in this proceeding, the Commission considers that to set a cost-based rate would fail to take adequate account of considerations such as the usefulness of a reasonably complete directory and the revenue impact of reduced rates.
32. However, given increasing personal privacy concerns, the Commission also considers it inappropriate that monthly rates for unlisted number service for residence subscribers remain at levels that were established in the past with a view to maximizing revenues available to subsidize basic residential service.
33. Taking into account the increasing privacy concerns, as well as factors such as the revenue impact of reduced rates for unlisted numbers service and the contribution that readily available subscriber listing information makes to the usefulness of the network, the Commission considers it appropriate that the telephone companies provide an unlisted number service at a rate that does not exceed $2 per month for residence subscribers.
[55] As to the Applicant's suggestion that TELUS unilaterally change its tariff for NPNS to reduce the rate to nil, it would have to file any proposed amendments with the CRTC for its approval. In his affidavit, Mr. Brooks contends that a shift to a nil rate, or any other decrease from the current rates for NPNS, would have two principal impacts:
1) there would be an associated reduction in revenues which TELUS would seek to off-set by increases to rates for other services; and
2) there would be an increase in demand for NPNS which would compromise the CRTC's stated goal of preserving the benefit to society of having a comprehensive directory.
[56] As the CRTC is charged by subsection 48(1) of the Telecommunications Act with the jurisdiction to ensure that the requirements of that Act are complied with; as section 27 of that Act, inter alia, requires that every rate charged for a telecommunications service be just and reasonable and; as the courts grant significant deference to the decisions that fall within the CRTC's area of expertise; I find that in accordance with Telecom Order CRTC 98-109, the PIPEDA does not restrict TELUS from charging a reasonable fee for the provision of NPNS.
[57] As stated by the Respondent, "given that the CRTC's special expertise and mandate in the telecommunications sector requires the CRTC to balance social and economic imperatives and to actively regulate the telecommunications sector, the only reasonable conclusion is that Parliament intended that any privacy matter that has any effect on the rates, tariffs and regulations imposed by the CRTC remain in the exclusive jurisdiction of the CRTC."
[58] In his Reply Memorandum, the Applicant states that the fundamental issue in the case at bar is whether TELUS' practice of charging a fee for not publishing a customer's listing information contravenes the specific provisions of the PIPEDA and that furthermore, that issue has never been considered by the CRTC, in light of the fact that the PIPEDA had not been enacted when the CRTC issued Telecom Order CRTC 98-109. One cannot disagree with such statement.
[59] I however find that the enactment of the PIPEDA in no way changed the state of things, thereby making it unnecessary for TELUS to submit new or revised tariff pages to the CRTC for approval.
[60] In its part, the Respondent strongly suggests that this Court has no jurisdiction over the fee issue, as it is a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the CRTC. The Respondent bases its argument on the decisions of Weber v. Ontario Hydro [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929, Gendron v. Public Service Alliance of Canada, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1298, and L'Écuyer c. Aéroports de Montréal, [2003] A.C.F. no 752, 2003 CFPI 573.
[61] I agree with the Respondent's argument.
[62] The Applicant's "five reasons why charging a fee for an unlisted number contravenes PIPEDA" has entirely failed to convince me of such a violation. After a careful and thorough reading of the PIPEDA, I find that there is no express nor implied restriction on TELUS from charging a reasonable fee for the provision of NPNS.
[63] In my view, the Applicant has failed to convince the Court that his application was well-founded.
ORDER
[64] Therefore, this application is dismissed with costs in favour of the Respondent.
(Sgd.) "Pierre Blais"
J.F.C.C.
SCHEDULE "A"
RELEVANT LEGISLATION
Section 2 of the PIPEDA defines the following terms:
"commercial activity" means any particular transaction, act or conduct or any regular course of conduct that is of a commercial character, including the selling, bartering or leasing of donor, membership or other fundraising lists.
« _activité commerciale_ » Toute activité régulière ainsi que tout acte isolé qui revêtent un caractère commercial de par leur nature, y compris la vente, le troc ou la location de listes de donneurs, d'adhésion ou de collecte de fonds.
"personal information" means information about an identifiable individual, but does not include the name, title or business address or telephone number of an employee of an organization.
« _renseignement personnel_ » Tout renseignement concernant un individu identifiable, à l'exclusion du nom et du titre d'un employé d'une organisation et des adresse et numéro de téléphone de son lieu de travail.
Section 3 determines the purpose of the PIPEDA:
3. The purpose of this Part is to establish, in an era in which technology increasingly facilitates the circulation and exchange of information, rules to govern the collection, use and disclosure of personal information in a manner that recognizes the right of privacy of individuals with respect to their personal information and the need of organizations to collect, use or disclose personal information for purposes that a reasonable person would consider appropriate in the circumstances.
[emphasis added]
3. La présente partie a pour objet de fixer, dans une ère où la technologie facilite de plus en plus la circulation et l'échange de renseignements, des règles régissant la collecte, l'utilisation et la communication de renseignements personnels d'une manière qui tient compte du droit des individus à la vie privée à l'égard des renseignements personnels qui les concernent et du besoin des organisations de recueillir, d'utiliser ou de communiquer des renseignements personnels à des fins qu'une personne raisonnable estimerait acceptables dans les circonstances.
[nos italiques]
Subsection 4(1) of the PIPEDA refers to the application of the Act:
4. (1) This Part applies to every organization in respect of personal information that
(a) the organization collects, uses or discloses in the course of commercial activities; or
(b) is about an employee of the organization and that the organization collects, uses or discloses in connection with the operation of a federal work, undertaking or business.
4. (1) La présente partie s'applique à toute organisation à l'égard des renseignements personnels_:
a) soit qu'elle recueille, utilise ou communique dans le cadre d'activités commerciales;
b) soit qui concernent un de ses employés et qu'elle recueille, utilise ou communique dans le cadre d'une entreprise fédérale.
Section 5 of the PIPEDA relates to the compliance with the obligations of Schedule 1:
5(1) Subject to sections 6 to 9, every organization shall comply with the obligations set out in Schedule 1.
5(2) The word "should", when used in Schedule 1, indicates a recommendation and does not impose an obligation.
5(3) An organization may collect, use or disclose personal information only for purposes that a reasonable person would consider are appropriate in the circumstances.
[emphasis added]
5(1) Sous réserve des articles 6 à 9, toute organisation doit se conformer aux obligations énoncées dans l'annexe 1.
5(2) L'emploi du conditionnel dans l'annexe 1 indique qu'il s'agit d'une recommandation et non d'une obligation.
5(3) L'organisation ne peut recueillir, utiliser ou communiquer des renseignements personnels qu'à des fins qu'une personne raisonnable estimerait acceptables dans les circonstances.
[nos italiques]
Section 7 of the PIPEDA refers to the collection, use, or disclosure of personal information without the individual's knowledge or consent:
7. (1) For the purpose of clause 4.3 of Schedule 1, and despite the note that accompanies that clause, an organization may collect personal information without the knowledge or consent of the individual only if
(a) the collection is clearly in the interests of the individual and consent cannot be obtained in a timely way;
(b) it is reasonable to expect that the collection with the knowledge or consent of the individual would compromise the availability or the accuracy of the information and the collection is reasonable for purposes related to investigating a breach of an agreement or a contravention of the laws of Canada or a province;
(c) the collection is solely for journalistic, artistic or literary purposes; or
(d) the information is publicly available and is specified by the regulations.
7(2) For the purpose of clause 4.3 of Schedule 1, and despite the note that accompanies that clause, an organization may, without the knowledge or consent of the individual, use personal information only if
(a) in the course of its activities, the organization becomes aware of information that it has reasonable grounds to believe could be useful in the investigation of a contravention of the laws of Canada, a province or a foreign jurisdiction that has been, is being or is about to be committed, and the information is used for the purpose of investigating that contravention;
(b) it is used for the purpose of acting in respect of an emergency that threatens the life, health or security of an individual;
(c) it is used for statistical, or scholarly study or research, purposes that cannot be achieved without using the information, the information is used in a manner that will ensure its confidentiality, it is impracticable to obtain consent and the organization informs the Commissioner of the use before the information is used;
(c.1) it is publicly available and is specified by the regulations; or
(d) it was collected under paragraph (1)(a) or (b).
7(3) For the purpose of clause 4.3 of Schedule 1, and despite the note that accompanies that clause, an organization may disclose personal information without the knowledge or consent of the individual only if the disclosure is
(a) made to, in the Province of Quebec, an advocate or notary or, in any other province, a barrister or solicitor who is representing the organization;
(b) for the purpose of collecting a debt owed by the individual to the organization;
(c) required to comply with a subpoena or warrant issued or an order made by a court, person or body with jurisdiction to compel the production of information, or to comply with rules of court relating to the production of records;
(c.1) made to a government institution or part of a government institution that has made a request for the information, identified its lawful authority to obtain the information and indicated that
(i) it suspects that the information relates to national security, the defence of Canada or the conduct of international affairs,
(ii) the disclosure is requested for the purpose of enforcing any law of Canada, a province or a foreign jurisdiction, carrying out an investigation relating to the enforcement of any such law or gathering intelligence for the purpose of enforcing any such law, or
(iii) the disclosure is requested for the purpose of administering any law of Canada or a province;
(c.2) made to the government institution mentioned in section 7 of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act as required by that section;
*(c.2) made to the government institution mentioned in section 7 of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act as required by that section;
*[Note: Paragraph 7(3)(c.2), as enacted by paragraph 97(1)(a) of chapter 17 of the Statutes of Canada, 2000, will be repealed at a later date.]
(d) made on the initiative of the organization to an investigative body, a government institution or a part of a government institution and the organization
(i) has reasonable grounds to believe that the information relates to a breach of an agreement or a contravention of the laws of Canada, a province or a foreign jurisdiction that has been, is being or is about to be committed, or
(ii) suspects that the information relates to national security, the defence of Canada or the conduct of international affairs;
(e) made to a person who needs the information because of an emergency that threatens the life, health or security of an individual and, if the individual whom the information is about is alive, the organization informs that individual in writing without delay of the disclosure;
(f) for statistical, or scholarly study or research, purposes that cannot be achieved without disclosing the information, it is impracticable to obtain consent and the organization informs the Commissioner of the disclosure before the information is disclosed;
(g) made to an institution whose functions include the conservation of records of historic or archival importance, and the disclosure is made for the purpose of such conservation;
(h) made after the earlier of
(i) one hundred years after the record containing the information was created, and
(ii) twenty years after the death of the individual whom the information is about;
(h.1) of information that is publicly available and is specified by the regula