Eastmond v. Canadian Pacific Railway

Eastmond v. Canadian Pacific Railway
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2004-06-11
Neutral citation
2004 FC 852
File numbers
T-309-03
Notes
Digest
Decision Content
Date: 20040611
Docket: T-309-03
Citation: 2004 FC 852
BETWEEN:
ERWIN EASTMOND
Applicant
- and -
CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
Respondent
- and -
PRIVACY COMMISSIONER OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
LEMIEUX J.:
BACKGROUND
[1] In December 2001, Canadian Pacific Railway ("CP") installed six digital video recording surveillance cameras (the "surveillance cameras") in the mechanical facility area, part of its main rail classification and maintenance yard located in Scarborough, Ontario (the "Toronto Yard"). The mechanical facility at the Toronto Yard is the site of CP's diesel and car repair shops.
[2] On January 17, 2002, Erwin Eastmond (the "applicant"), a CP shopcraft employee in the diesel shop, a member of the CAW-Canada Local 101 (the "Union"), and a human rights representative for the diesel shop, filed a complaint with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (the "Privacy Commissioner") pursuant to the Personal Information and Electronic Documents Act ("PIPEDA"). That complaint reads:
This letter is to inform your office of certain rights that as an employee of Canadian Pacific Railway and as an Officer of Human Rights Caw are being violated.
The Company has had cameras in the yard to keep track of the movement of the locomotives over the last several years to with [sic] building and dispatching of trains.
Recently Dec 2001, the Company has installed additional cameras and has focussed them on door entrances and exits.
This measure is totally unacceptable because:
1. it was done in secrecy, without any consultation with the Union
2. there is no security problem that could justify such an invasion of privacy
3. this system could be used for monitoring the conduct and work performance of workers and that would be an affront to human dignity
4. the negative effect on workers' morale, and working climate is dangerous
The Human Rights Office demands that this video surveillance be dismantled without delays and that all workers in the Toronto Diesel Terminal be made whole and receive full redress.
I appeal to your commission to investigate this complaint on the grounds that our rights as Canadians in a free country are being violated.
SPECIFIC LAW VIOLATION, IF KNOWN
The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act of Canada and all other Laws, Agreement or Rules that may apply. [emphasis mine]
[signed] Erwin Eastmond, Human Rights, Caw Canada
[3] Two days before, on January 15, 2002, André Corriveau, shopcraft leader in the diesel shop, filed a grievance pursuant to Rule 28 of the collective agreement between CP and the Union. The Union sought the dismantlement of the surveillance cameras. He alleged Rule 43 - human rights of the collective agreement and PIPEDA - were violated.
[4] On February 4, 2002, Kie Delgaty, a Privacy Officer in the Commissioner's office, wrote to the applicant stating he had been assigned to investigate the complaint and CP had been advised the investigation would focus on its collection of personal information practices.
[5] On April 12, 2002, CP posted a bulletin on both the diesel shop and car shop bulletin boards advising all employees and managers six security cameras had been installed and would begin taping April 15, 2002, identifying the six locations (front entrance of locomotive shop facing west, two in the parking lot south of the locomotive facility, one in the roadway between one spot and mechanical offices, one on the roadway west end of the car shop and one in the west end materials department storage area). The second and third paragraphs of CP's bulleting state: (applicant's record, page 44)
The intent of the Security system is to protect against theft, vandalism, unauthorized personnel and incidents related. The system is designed to tape over 30 hour periods. Viewing will be by authorized Managers and CP Police only. There is no intent to use this equipment for productivity issues or normal management of the collective agreement, the cameras are purposely positioned away from actual work areas and focussed on general areas where all employees or non employees have access.
All entrance areas around the Mechanical Facility have signs installed as follows,
WARNING
THIS FACILITY IS PROTECTED BY VIDEO AND ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE
CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY [emphasis mine]
THE PRIVACY COMMISSIONER'S REPORT
[6] On January 23, 2003, the Privacy Commissioner issued his report. He determined the complaint was well-founded and recommended CP Rail remove the cameras.
[7] The Privacy Commissioner first established his jurisdiction by stating PIPEDA as at January 1, 2001, applied to every federal work, undertaking and business holding CP fell within that category. He then stated the information at issue was personal information for purposes of the Act. He referred to section 2 of PIPEDA which defined personal information to be "... information about an identifiable individual ..." stating he was satisfied the information captured by the cameras qualified as information about employees as individuals.
[8] He then found certain facts including:
(i) a volume of 1,100 to 1,200 daily freight cars were handled by the Toronto Yard which was also responsible for repairing and maintaining locomotives and cars in the diesel and car shops, the area where the video camera monitoring was taking place;
(ii) the presence in the mechanical facility not only of CP employees but of personnel from three large contractors, namely, General Motors, ("GM") General Electric ("GE") and Omni-Trax. Staff were in the repair shops twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week;
(iii) Toronto Yard is private property owned by CP and is not generally accessible to the public. There are warning signs posted at the entrances of the mechanical facility stating the facility is protected by video and electronic surveillance;
(iv) at the Toronto Yard, CP has three separate camera systems. The Planner Train Services cameras were one of the operational systems; they warn if trains are coming. These cameras are rotating, have zoom capacity, but do not record. They were installed in 2002 after a risk analysis was undertaken regarding workplace safety. The other operational system includes three dispatch cameras with individual monitors and set of controls. The cameras rotate, have zoom capacity, but do not record. The dispatch cameras are used to determine the location of the locomotives, check their orientation and identify where a train will be spotted in the yard;
(v) as for the six digital video surveillance cameras, the subject of the applicant's complaint, the Commissioner's report states:
There are six digital video cameras stationed at various locations in the yard, specifically in areas of general access and parking. They operate from a central, unmanned console inside the main administrative building of the Diesel Shop. The cameras are fixed, i.e., they cannot be moved or rotated from the main operating console to change the angle of view, do not have zoom capacity, and automatically tape for a 48-hour period.
(vi) both the union and CP Rail agreed the quality of picture resolution from the surveillance cameras was poor, and that it would not be possible to identify an individual at night if he or she were in a poorly lit area. It was even difficult from the tape to identify an individual during the day.
(vii) If there were a reported incident of vandalism, theft, or threat to staff security, CP officials would be able to view the recording and it might be possible to identify some of the personal information of anyone captured on the camera, such as the colour of coat or type of hat worn, or other physical characteristics, if the resolution were technologically enhanced.
(viii) If not interrupted, the cameras automatically record another 48-hour cycle;
(ix) in response to union concerns, CP repositioned the angle of view of two of the cameras which were originally focussed on the door to the lunchroom and the washroom of one of the shops.
[9] The Privacy Commissioner then outlined the reasons CP gave him for installing the surveillance cameras. His report on this point reads:
CP Rail gave three reasons for installing the digital video cameras: to reduce vandalism and deter theft, to reduce PC Rail's potential liability for property damage, and to provide security for staff. The company cited two principal incidents of vandalism: $3,000 in damage to welding equipment and several thousand dollars in damage to the video cameras themselves. There have been no incidents of damage to any of the contractors' property to date. CP Rail is uncertain that it would in fact be liable were there such an incident; however, its position is that it is important to be proactive.
With respect to the issue of staff security, CP Rail refers to two incidents where female employees reported feeling vulnerable. The union states that it has not been informed of any such incidents. the union is of the view that security is not really an issue since there are significant numbers of staff who enter and exit the site at approximately the same time when the shifts change.
[10] The Privacy Commissioner then embarked upon his analysis, i.e. the application of the facts to PIPEDA's legal structure. His focus was on subsection 5(3) of PIPEDA.
[11] He paraphrased that section to mean that an organization may collect "... personal information only for purposes that a reasonable person would consider are appropriate in the circumstances". The Privacy Commissioner stated he was required to consider both the appropriateness of the organisation's purposes for collecting personal information as well as the circumstances surrounding the determination of those purposes.
[12] He then recalled CP's stated purposes and said "[A]t first blush it would seem that these purposes are appropriate. But to ensure compliance with the intent of section 5(3), we also need to examine the circumstances. What motivated CP Rail to take such a measure? Do the circumstances merit a video surveillance solution?"
[13] To determine whether CP's use of surveillance cameras was reasonable in this particular case, he found it useful to set up a four-part test as follows:
• Is the measure demonstrably necessary to meet a specific need? • Is it likely to be effective in meeting that need? • Is the loss of privacy proportional to the benefit gained? • Is there a less privacy-invasive way of achieving the same end?
[14] The Privacy Commissioner ruled on the four-part test in the following four paragraphs which I cite textually:
While I acknowledge that CP Rail's concerns may be serious, to what degree are they real? Does a specific problem in fact exist at CP Rail's Toronto yard? While there have been a few incidents of vandalism and theft, the most significant incident of damage has been to the video cameras themselves. As for employee security, the union is not aware of any specific incidents of staff feeling vulnerable. CP Rail argues that the video cameras are needed in the light of its potential liability for the damage of property to third party contractors on the site. The company's actual risk from liability claims, however, even in the event of actual damages, is unclear. While there may be a potential for a problem, CP Rail has not demonstrated the existence of a real and specific one.
Will this system be effective? Although there have been no incidents since the video cameras were installed, in the absence of statistics to show a demonstrable need, it is hard to argue that they have been a definite deterrent. In fact, it could be argued that the signs warning people entering the site may have deterred would-be vandals.
Is the loss of privacy proportional to the benefit gained? While I acknowledge that the system provides a poor picture resolution and the cameras are not trained on areas where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, it may nevertheless be possible to identify an individual during the day, though it would be difficult to do so. Furthermore, I am concerned that the mere presence of these video cameras has given rise to the perception among employees that their comings and goings are being watched, whether or not that is actually the case, and that the adverse psychological effects of a perceived privacy invasion may be occurring.
Lastly, CP Rail does not appear to have evaluated the cost and effectiveness of alternatives, such as better lighting in the parking lots, which could address the issue of employee security, with no effect on employee privacy. [emphasis mine]
[15] Based on this analysis, the Privacy Commissioner did not believe a reasonable person would consider those circumstances sufficient to warrant taking such an intrusive measure as installing digital video surveillance cameras. The Privacy Commissioner found CP's use of "this type of video surveillance for these purposes", not to be appropriate and CP Rail in contravention of subsection 5(3) of PIPEDA.
THIS PROCEEDING
[16] On February 13, 2003, the applicant initiated this proceeding pursuant to subsection 14(1) of PIPEDA which reads:
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. [emphasis mine]
14. (1) Après avoir reçu le rapport du commissaire, le plaignant peut demander que la Cour entende toute question qui a fait l'objet de la plainte - ou qui est mentionnée dans le rapport - et qui est visée aux articles 4.1.3, 4.2, 4.3.3, 4.4, 4.6, 4.7 ou 4.8 de l'annexe 1, aux articles 4.3, 4.5 ou 4.9 de cette annexe tels que modifiés ou clarifiés par la section 1, aux paragraphes 5(3) ou 8(6) ou (7) ou à l'article 10.
[17] PIPEDA defines "Court" to mean the Federal Court and its subsection 14(2) provides the application must be made withing forty-five (45) days after the report is sent or within such further time as the Court may allow. Section 17 stipulates the application is to be heard and determined without delay and in a summary way unless the Court considers it inappropriate to do so.
[18] The applicant sought the following orders:
(i) An order confirming the report of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada that the Respondent Canadian Pacific Railway not operate and remove the digital video camera system installed at its Scarborough, Ontario main rail yard;
(ii) An order that any records including any videotape recordings in the possession, control or custody of Canadian Pacific Railway generated by the aforesaid digital video camera system be destroyed forthwith;
(iii) An order that the respondent Canadian Pacific Railway cease and desist from installing non-operational cameras or camera systems in and around its workplaces in Canada, without the consent of the employee's collective bargaining agent;
(iv) Such further and other relief as may be found to be appropriate by this Honourable Court;
(v) His costs of this application. [emphasis mine]
[19] The applicant's counsel, quite correctly, at the hearing, did not press item (iii).
PIPEDA'S LEGISLATIVE STRUCTURE
[20] PIPEDA evidences a unique legislative structure. There is the Act itself and then there is Schedule 1 to the Act ("Schedule 1"). Subsection 5(1) of the Act reads:
5. (1) Subject to sections 6 to 9, every organization shall comply with the obligations set out in Schedule 1.
5. (1) Sous réserve des articles 6 à 9, toute organisation doit se conformer aux obligations énoncées dans l'annexe 1.
[21] PIPEDA's Schedule 1 incorporates integrally the Canadian Standards Association ("CSA") National Standard of Canada entitled "Model Code for the Protection of Personal Information, CAN/CSA-Q 830-96".
[22] One of the objectives of the provisions of the Act, as opposed to Schedule 1, is to qualify or modify the principles set out in CSA's national standard model code reproduced in Schedule 1.
[23] The Act itself is divided into a number of parts as follows:
(1) Part 1 is entitled "Protection of Personal Information in the Private Sector";
(2) Division 1, of Part 1, is entitled "Protection of Personal Information" and covers such matters as appropriate purposes (subsection 5(3)), collection without knowledge and consent (subsection 7(1)), use without knowledge and consent (subsection 7(2)), and disclosure without knowledge or consent (subsection 7(3));
(3) Division 2 of Part 1 is entitled "Remedies" and covers matters such as the filing of complaints (section 11), investigation of complaints (section 12), the Privacy Commissioner's Report, (section 13), the circumstances where the Privacy Commissioner is not obligated to prepare a report (subsection 13(2)) and the hearing by the Federal Court (sections 14 through 17);
(4) Part 1 has two other divisions dealing with audits and a general division dealing with confidentiality and other matters concerning the status of the Privacy Commissioner.
[24] The body of PIPEDA contains other parts. Part 2 deals with electronic documents. For the purpose of these reasons, I do not need to go further in the description of the others parts of PIPEDA.
[25] Schedule 1 follows the provisions described above.
RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS
(a) Leading up to Schedule 1
[26] Sections 3, 4 (but not 4.1), 5, subsection 7(1), 11, 13, 14, 15, 16 and subsection 17(1) of the PIPEDA read:
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.
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(2) Limit
(2) This Part does not apply to
. . .
4(3) Other Acts
*(3) Every provision of this Part applies despite any provision, enacted after this subsection comes into force, of any other Act of Parliament, unless the other Act expressly declares that that provision operates despite the provision of this Part.
Compliance with obligations
5. (1) Subject to sections 6 to 9, every organization shall comply with the obligations set out in Schedule 1.
5(2) Meaning of "should"
(2) The word "should", when used in Schedule 1, indicates a recommendation and does not impose an obligation.
5(3) Appropriate purposes
(3) An organization may collect, use or disclose personal information only for purposes that a reasonable person would consider are appropriate in the circumstances.
Collection without 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.
Contravention
11. (1) An individual may file with the Commissioner a written complaint against an organization for contravening a provision of Division 1 or for not following a recommendation set out in Schedule 1.
11(2) Commissioner may initiate complaint
(2) If the Commissioner is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to investigate a matter under this Part, the Commissioner may initiate a complaint in respect of the matter.
. . .
13(1) Contents
13. (1) The Commissioner shall, within one year after the day on which a complaint is filed or is initiated by the Commissioner, prepare a report that contains
(a) the Commissioner's findings and recommendations;
(b) any settlement that was reached by the parties;
(c) if appropriate, a request that the organization give the Commissioner, within a specified time, notice of any action taken or proposed to be taken to implement the recommendations contained in the report or reasons why no such action has been or is proposed to be taken; and
(d) the recourse, if any, that is available under section 14.
13(2) Where no report
(2) The Commissioner is not required to prepare a report if the Commissioner is satisfied that
(a) the complainant ought first to exhaust grievance or review procedures otherwise reasonably available;
(b) the complaint could more appropriately be dealt with, initially or completely, by means of a procedure provided for under the laws of Canada, other than this Part, or the laws of a province;
(c) the length of time that has elapsed between the date when the subject-matter of the complaint arose and the date when the complaint was filed is such that a report would not serve a useful purpose; or
(d) the complaint is trivial, frivolous or vexatious or is made in bad faith.
If a report is not to be prepared, the Commissioner shall inform the complainant and the organization and give reasons.
13(3) Report to parties
(3) The report shall be sent to the complainant and the organization without delay.
Hearing by Court
14(1) Application
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.
. . .
16 Remedies
16. The Court may, in addition to any other remedies it may give,
(a) order an organization to correct its practices in order to comply with sections 5 to 10;
(b) order an organization to publish a notice of any action taken or proposed to be taken to correct its practices, whether or not ordered to correct them under paragraph (a); and
(c) award damages to the complainant, including damages for any humiliation that the complainant has suffered.
17(1) Summary hearings
17. (1) An application made under section 14 or 15 shall be heard and determined without delay and in a summary way unless the Court considers it inappropriate to do so. [emphasis mine]
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.
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.
4(2) Limite
(2) La présente partie ne s'applique pas_:
. . .
4(3) Autre loi
*(3) Toute disposition de la présente partie s'applique malgré toute disposition - édictée après l'entrée en vigueur du présent paragraphe - d'une autre loi fédérale, sauf dérogation expresse de la disposition de l'autre loi.
Obligation de se conformer aux obligations
5. (1) Sous réserve des articles 6 à 9, toute organisation doit se conformer aux obligations énoncées dans l'annexe 1.
5(2) Emploi du conditionnel
(2) L'emploi du conditionnel dans l'annexe 1 indique qu'il s'agit d'une recommandation et non d'une obligation.
5(3) Fins acceptables
(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.
Collecte à l'insu de l'intéressé et sans son consentement
7. (1) Pour l'application de l'article 4.3 de l'annexe 1 et malgré la note afférente, l'organisation ne peut recueillir de renseignement personnel à l'insu de l'intéressé et sans son consentement que dans les cas suivants_:
a) la collecte du renseignement est manifestement dans l'intérêt de l'intéressé et le consentement ne peut être obtenu auprès de celui-ci en temps opportun;
b) il est raisonnable de s'attendre à ce que la collecte effectuée au su ou avec le consentement de l'intéressé puisse compromettre l'exactitude du renseignement ou l'accès à celui-ci, et la collecte est raisonnable à des fins liées à une enquête sur la violation d'un accord ou la contravention du droit fédéral ou provincial;
c) la collecte est faite uniquement à des fins journalistiques, artistiques ou littéraires;
d) il s'agit d'un renseignement réglementaire auquel le public a accès.
Violation
11. (1) Tout intéressé peut déposer auprès du commissaire une plainte contre une organisation qui contrevient à l'une des dispositions de la section 1 ou qui omet de mettre en oeuvre une recommandation énoncée dans l'annexe 1.
11(2) Plaintes émanant du commissaire
(2) Le commissaire peut lui-même prendre l'initiative d'une plainte s'il a des motifs raisonnables de croire qu'une enquête devrait être menée sur une question relative à l'application de la présente partie.
. . .
Contenu
13. (1) Dans l'année suivant, selon le cas, la date du dépôt de la plainte ou celle où il en a pris l'initiative, le commissaire dresse un rapport où_:
a) il présente ses conclusions et recommandations;
b) il fait état de tout règlement intervenu entre les parties;
c) il demande, s'il y a lieu, à l'organisation de lui donner avis, dans un délai déterminé, soit des mesures prises ou envisagées pour la mise en oeuvre de ses recommandations, soit des motifs invoqués pour ne pas y donner suite;
d) mentionne, s'il y a lieu, l'existence du recours prévu à l'article 14.
13(2) Aucun rapport
(2) Il n'est toutefois pas tenu de dresser un rapport s'il est convaincu que, selon le cas_:
a) le plaignant devrait d'abord épuiser les recours internes ou les procédures d'appel ou de règlement des griefs qui lui sont normalement ouverts;
b) la plainte pourrait avantageusement être instruite, dans un premier temps ou à toutes les étapes, selon des procédures prévues par le droit fédéral - à l'exception de la présente partie - ou le droit provincial;
c) le délai écoulé entre la date où l'objet de la plainte a pris naissance et celle du dépôt de celle-ci est tel que le rapport serait inutile;
d) la plainte est futile, vexatoire ou entachée de mauvaise foi.
Le cas échéant, il en informe le plaignant et l'organisation, motifs à l'appui.
13(3) Transmission aux parties
(3) Le rapport est transmis sans délai au plaignant et à l'organisation.
Audience de la Cour
14(1) Demande
14. (1) Après avoir reçu le rapport du commissaire, le plaignant peut demander que la Cour entende toute question qui a fait l'objet de la plainte - ou qui est mentionnée dans le rapport - et qui est visée aux articles 4.1.3, 4.2, 4.3.3, 4.4, 4.6, 4.7 ou 4.8 de l'annexe 1, aux articles 4.3, 4.5 ou 4.9 de cette annexe tels que modifiés ou clarifiés par la section 1, aux paragraphes 5(3) ou 8(6) ou (7) ou à l'article 10.
. . .
16 Réparations
16. La Cour peut, en sus de toute autre réparation qu'elle accorde_:
a) ordonner à l'organisation de revoir ses pratiques de façon à se conformer aux articles 5 à 10;
b) lui ordonner de publier un avis énonçant les mesures prises ou envisagées pour corriger ses pratiques, que ces dernières aient ou non fait l'objet d'une ordonnance visée à l'alinéa a);
c) accorder au plaignant des dommages-intérêts, notamment en réparation de l'humiliation subie.
17(1) Procédure sommaire
17. (1) Le recours prévu aux articles 14 ou 15 est entendu et jugé sans délai et selon une procédure sommaire, à moins que la Cour ne l'estime contre-indiqué.
(b) Schedule 1
[27] The Schedule to PIPEDA contains of a number of principles such as accountability, (article 4.1), identifying purposes (article 4.2), consent (article 4.3), limiting collection (article 4.4), limiting use, disclosure and retention (article 4.5), accuracy (article 4.6), safeguards (article 4.7), openness (article 4.8), individual access (article 4.9) and challenging compliance (article 4.10).
[28] Associated with each principle are a number of rules.
[29] Principle 2 "Identifying purposes", paragraph 4.2.2, Principle 3 - "Consent" and paragraph 4.3.1 and 2 read:
4.2 Principle 2 - Identifying Purposes
The purposes for which personal information is collected shall be identified by the organization at or before the time the information is collected.
4.2.2
Identifying the purposes for which personal information is collected at or before the time of collection allows organizations to determine the information they need to collect to fulfil these purposes. The Limiting Collection principle (Clause 4.4) requires an organization to collect only that information necessary for the purposes that have been identified.
4.3 Principle 3 - Consent
The knowledge and consent of the individual are required for the collection, use, or disclosure of personal information, except where inappropriate.
Note: In certain circumstances personal information can be collected, used, or disclosed without the knowledge and consent of the individual. For example, legal, medical, or security reasons may make it impossible or impractical to seek consent. When information is being collected for the detection and prevention of fraud or for law enforcement, seeking the consent of the individual might defeat the purpose of collecting the information. Seeking consent may be impossible or inappropriate when the individual is a minor, seriously ill, or mentally incapacitated. In addition, organizations that do not have a direct relationship with the individual may not always be able to seek consent. For example, seeking consent may be impractical for a charity or a direct-marketing firm that wishes to acquire a mailing list from another organization. In such cases, the organization providing the list would be expected to obtain consent before disclosing personal information.
4.3.1
Consent is required for the collection of personal information and the subsequent use or disclosure of this information. Typically, an organization will seek consent for the use or disclosure of the information at the time of collection. In certain circumstances, consent with respect to use or disclosure may be sought after the information has been collected but before use (for example, when an organization wants to use information for a purpose not previously identified).
4.3.2
The principle requires "knowledge and consent". Organizations shall make a reasonable effort to ensure that the individual is advised of the purposes for which the information will be used. To make the consent meaningful, the purposes must be stated in such a manner that the individual can reasonably understand how the information will be used or disclosed. [emphasis mine]
4.2 Deuxième principe - Détermination des fins de la collecte des renseignements
Les fins auxquelles des renseignements personnels sont recueillis doivent être déterminées par l'organisation avant la collecte ou au moment de celle-ci.
4.2.2
Le fait de préciser les fins de la collecte de renseignements personnels avant celle-ci ou au moment de celle-ci permet à l'organisation de déterminer les renseignements dont elle a besoin pour réaliser les fins mentionnées. Suivant le principe de la limitation en matière de collecte (article 4.4), l'organisation ne doit recueillir que les renseignements nécessaires aux fins mentionnées.
4.3 Troisième principe - Consentement
Toute personne doit être informée de toute collecte, utilisation ou communication de renseignements personnels qui la concernent et y consentir, à moins qu'il ne soit pas approprié de le faire.
Note_: Dans certaines circonstances, il est possible de recueillir, d'utiliser et de communiquer des renseignements à l'insu de la personne concernée et sans son consentement. Par exemple, pour des raisons d'ordre juridique ou médical ou pour des raisons de sécurité, il peut être impossible ou peu réaliste d'obtenir le consentement de la personne concernée. Lorsqu'on recueille des renseignements aux fins du contrôle d'application de la loi, de la détection d'une fraude ou de sa prévention, on peut aller à l'encontre du but visé si l'on cherche à obtenir le consentement de la personne concernée. Il peut être impossible ou inopportun de chercher à obtenir le consentement d'un mineur, d'une personne gravement malade ou souffrant d'incapacité mentale. De plus, les organisations qui ne sont pas en relation directe avec la personne concernée ne sont pas toujours en mesure d'obtenir le consentement prévu. Par exemple, il peut être peu réaliste pour une oeuvre de bienfaisance ou une entreprise de marketing direct souhaitant acquérir une liste d'envoi d'une autre organisation de chercher à obtenir le consentement des personnes concernées. On s'attendrait, dans de tels cas, à ce que l'organisation qui fournit la liste obtienne le consentement des personnes concernées avant de communiquer des renseignements personnels.
4.3.1
Il faut obtenir le consentement de la personne concernée avant de recueillir des renseignements personnels à son sujet et d'utiliser ou de communiquer les renseignements recueillis. Généralement, une organisation obtient le consentement des personnes concernées relativement à l'utilisation et à la communication des renseignements personnels au moment de la collecte. Dans certains cas, une organisation peut obtenir le consentement concernant l'utilisation ou la communication des renseignements après avoir recueilli ces renseignements, mais avant de s'en servir, par exemple, quand elle veut les utiliser à des fins non précisées antérieurement.
4.3.2
Suivant ce principe, il faut informer la personne au sujet de laquelle on recueille des renseignements et obtenir son consentement. Les organisations doivent faire un effort raisonnable pour s'assurer que la personne est informée des fins auxquelles les renseignements seront utilisés. Pour que le consentement soit valable, les fins doivent être énoncées de façon que la personne puisse raisonnablement comprendre de quelle manière les renseignements seront utilisés ou communiqués.
THE EVIDENCE
(a) From CP
[30] CP filed four affidavits in opposition to the applicant's application. These affidavits were from Ronald Jourdain, Service Area Manager (Mechanical) - Ontario South, the affidavit of Gerry Moody, Chief of Canadian Pacific Railway Police Service ("CP Police Service"), the affidavit of Rohan Gosine, Deputy Service Area Manager - Ontario South, and the affidavit of Thomas Wojcik, Service Improvement Specialist - mechanical facility at CP's Toronto Yard. All deponents were cross-examined by counsel for the applicant.
(i) The affidavit of Ronald Jourdain
[31] Ronald Jourdain made these points in his affidavit:
(1) He was the one at CP who made the decision to install the surveillance cameras with Mr. Gosine being responsible for their precise location.
(2) CP's purposes for installing the surveillance cameras were:
7. When CPR made the decision to install the Digital Cameras in late 2001, CPR's intention was to use them as a deterrent against, and as a possible investigative tool for, incidents of theft, harassment, vandalism and unauthorized entry into the Mechanical Facility. CPR's objective was to create a safer, more secure workplace, while at the same time minimizing CPR's potential civil and contractual liability for injuries or losses suffered by third parties. It was never CPR's intention to use the Digital Cameras to monitor the work performance of its employees. [emphasis mine]
(3) He described the surveillance camera locations:
9. None of the locations where the Digital Cameras were installed are actual work areas, but rather are areas of general access, including several parking lots and roadways.
(4) The access roads to the Toronto Yard are unguarded and are easily accessible because its perimeter has no fencing around it and, in light of those facts:
CPR determined that installing the Digital Cameras at various public access points, and posting clear, visible signs warning of video surveillance at the entrances to the Mechanical Facility, would help present a deterrent to would-be wrongdoers.
(5) The images produced by the surveillance cameras are not monitored but the recording capability allows "the Mechanical Facility's management and the CP Police to review the recordings in the event that any suspicious activity or incident is reported" (respondent's record, page 104). He continued: (respondent's record, page 104)
11. The Mechanical Facility employees have been informed that the images produced by the Digital Cameras are not continuously monitored and will be reviewed only if an incident is reported to management that the cameras would have been likely to capture. [emphasis mine]
(6) There were changes at the Toronto Yard which contributed, in his opinion, to the need for digital cameras which he said "was rooted in CPR's concerns regarding safety, security and potential liability" confirming the particular timing of the installation "was not instigated by the occurrence of a specific event, but rather a change to the overall infrastructure of the Mechanical Facility itself".
(7) One major change was a decision to centralize in the mechanical facility at the Toronto Yard the tasking of several functions relating to diesel and car repair which previously had been carried out in several areas of the Toronto Yard. CP built two new parking lots near the mechanical facility to handle the increase of activity around the facility. He stated at paragraph 15 (respondent's record, page 105):
15. CPR also built two new parking lots near the Mechanical Facility to handle the increase in activity around the Mechanical Facility. These new parking lots can handle an additional 400 employees and they are one of the main areas where the Digital Cameras are used. On off-shifts and weekends, there are very few people in these areas at any given time. Prior to the construction of these parking lots, there was a bus service provided by CPR for its employees which would shuttle them to another parking lot further away from the Mechanical Facility. This bus service has been discontinued at an approximate annual savings of $360,000.
(8) Another change was the introduction by CP of contract supervisors in the diesel shop to oversee the repair and maintenance of their respective locomotives, i.e. the locomotives which CP had bought from GE and GM with Omni-Trax supervising the repair of other CP owne