Skip to content

Client Update: Does your business need a spring privacy tune-up? Breach reporting and Europe’s GDPR are about to hatch

Rob Aske

The arrival of spring should bring thoughts of renewal… to your privacy practices.

Breach reporting under PIPEDA

Canada’s federal privacy law known by the acronym PIPEDA (Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act) will now add privacy breach reporting as of November 1, 2018.

These breach reporting requirements were passed in 2015, but were not put into force as we waited for certain regulations to be proposed. But these regulations have now been published and with General Data Privacy Regulation coming in Europe in late May (see below), it was expected that Canada’s federal government would put the breach reporting provisions into force soon, and the November 1 implementation has just been announced.

The gist of the breach reporting obligations is as follows:

A business will be required to report to the Privacy Commissioner a breach involving personal information (“PI”) under its control, if it is reasonable to believe that the breach creates a real risk of significant harm to the individual.

Significant harm is defined to include humiliation, damage to reputation or relationships, loss of employment, business or professional opportunities, financial loss, identity theft, negative effects on credit record, and damage to or loss of property.

Factors relevant to the real risk of significant harm include sensitivity of the PI, and the probability that it may be misused.

The report to the Commissioner would need to describe the breach, when it occurred, the PI that is subject, the estimated number of individuals affected, and the steps that the organization is taking in response.

The business would also need to notify individuals whose PI is involved, if that breach creates a real risk of significant harm to the individual.

The notice to the individual would need to describe the breach, when it occurred, the PI affected, the steps the organization is taking, plus information about the business’ complaints process and the individual’s rights under PIPEDA.

The business could be obliged to notify other organizations or government if the business believes that these other bodies may be able to reduce the risk of harm.

Another big change with this new legislation is that businesses shall be obliged to keep and maintain records of EVERY breach of security safeguards involving PI; i.e. whether or not it meets any particular harm test. In addition, businesses must, on request, provide the Commissioner with access to copies of these records.

In other words (cynically speaking), businesses will be obliged to maintain records which will help the Commissioner and any claimant build a case against the business.

The regulations require records of breach to be maintained for 24 months after the date that the business determined that the breach occurred. In addition, these records, must enable the Commissioner to verify compliance with the business’ reporting obligations to the Commissioner and to individuals, if there has been a breach which creates a real risk of significant harm.

Any breach of these obligations may result in the business being charged with an offence, which could result in a fine not exceeding $100,000.

The obligation to report privacy breaches is not new to many jurisdictions, but will be new to much of Canada, and compels every business to tune up their privacy practices. And if your business deals with European customers, there’s more….

Europe’s General Data Privacy Regulation (“GDPR”) in force on May 25, 2018

This new law applies to both “controllers” and “processors” of PI. Controllers are those front line organizations (visible to the customer) that determine the purposes and means of processing PI, while a processor may process PI on behalf of the controller.

The GDPR can apply to a business which may not be established in the European Union (“EU”), if that business is offering goods and services to EU residents.

The GDPR takes individual consent to a higher level, requiring a freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the individual’s wishes, by which they offer a “clear affirmative action” to confirm their agreement to processing of their PI. Any PI collection must be specific, explicit and for legitimate purposes, and PI cannot be further processed in a manner that is not compatible with those purposes. Most interpret the GDPR’s consent provisions as requiring a positive opt-in, which is separate from other terms and conditions. The language must be plain. The right to withdraw must be as easy as giving consent, and must be available at any time. A child below 16 years must provide the consent of their parent or guardian.

Individuals have the right to obtain from controllers information about the processing of their PI including purposes of processing, categories of PI involved, recipients of PI, the period of retention, the identity of third parties providing any of the PI, and more.

EU residents will now have the so-called “right to be forgotten”, which requires the controller to erase PI without undue delay, provided that the PI is no longer necessary, and certain other conditions are met. Individuals will also have right to data portability, requiring controllers to transmit data to other controllers.

Processors may have potential direct liability, even though they may only be acting for the controller, and may not have any relationship with the individuals whose personal data is involved.

The GDPR also has obligations to notify individuals of data breach, similar terms to those outlined for PIPEDA above.

The GDPR gives individuals the right to an effective judicial remedy if their privacy rights have been infringed, including the right to receive compensation from the controllers and processors. The privacy authorities also have the right to levy fines for breach, which in some cases can go as high as €20 million, or 4% of total worldwide annual revenue for the preceding financial year, whichever is higher.

So if your organization has potential exposure in dealing with PI of Europeans, a close look at the obligations under GDPR is likely warranted.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Good Faith Fisheries: New case on Crown consultation & regulation of Aboriginal fisheries

March 22, 2016

By Jennifer Taylor Why is this case a big deal? It started with two salmon. Now, after several years of litigation, the Nova Scotia Provincial Court in R v Martin, 2016 NSPC 14 has stayed proceedings against…

Read More

Atlantic Employers’ Counsel – Winter 2016

March 10, 2016

THE EDITORS’ CORNER Michelle Black and Sean Kelly One day, the line between mental and physical disabilities may not be so pronounced, but, for now, distinctions are still drawn between Employee A with, for example, diabetes and…

Read More

Hiring the “Right” Employee

February 24, 2016

By Lisa Gallivan Employees can be your biggest asset, if you hire the right people. This can often be one of the biggest decisions that you make as a business owner or employer. The “right” employee…

Read More

Bye, Bye Canadian P.I.?: What Apple’s fight against the FBI means for the protection of Personal Information in Canada

February 23, 2016

By Burtley Francis and Kathleen Leighton Order Up: Apple, P.I. Recently, the public safety versus personal privacy debate has been brought to main headlines. Apple is facing a court order (available here) requiring the company to assist the FBI in the investigation of…

Read More

Client Update: Outlook for the 2016 Proxy Season

February 12, 2016

In preparing for the 2016 proxy season, you should be aware of some regulatory changes and institutional investor guidance that may impact disclosure to and interactions with your shareholders. This update highlights what is new…

Read More

Left Sharks and Copy Cats: The Super Bowl’s Impact on Protecting a Brand

February 5, 2016

By Burtley Francis and Michael MacIsaac You remember Left Shark… The Super Bowl is a lot of things to a lot of people and is arguably the most anticipated event of the year that is not a holiday…

Read More

The Labour Relations of First Nations’ Fisheries: Who gets to decide?

February 2, 2016

By Jennifer Taylor Summary The Canada Industrial Relations Board recently held that it had no jurisdiction as a federal board to certify a bargaining unit comprised of fisheries employees of the Waycobah First Nation. The decision…

Read More

Can an employer prohibit tattoos and piercings?

January 21, 2016

By Peter McLellan, QC In the 1970s the issue for employers was long hair and sideburns. In the 1980’s it was earrings for men. Today the employer’s concerns are with tattoos and facial piercings. What are…

Read More

Settling for it: Two new NS decisions on settlement agreements and releases

January 15, 2016

By Jennifer Taylor Introduction It sounds simple: Two disputing parties, hoping to resolve their disagreement without drawn-out court proceedings, will mutually agree to a settlement on clear terms; release each other from all claims; and move…

Read More

Labour and Employment Legislative Update 2015

December 23, 2015

2015 ends with changes in workplace laws that our region’s employers will want to be aware of moving into 2016. Some legislation has been proclaimed and is in force, some has passed and will be…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top