Skip to content

Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2020: The long-awaited overhaul of private sector privacy legislation in Canada

Koren Thomson and Sarah Byrne

On November 17, 2020, the Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2020 (“Act”) was introduced as Bill C-11. This is the first major update to the federal private sector privacy regime in Canada since the implementation of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (“PIPEDA”) in 2000. Bill C-11 seeks to enact two new pieces of legislation: the Consumer Privacy Protection Act (“CPPA”) and the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act (“PIDPTA”). It also repeals Part 1 of PIPEDA, which will be renamed the Electronic Documents Act.

Consumer Privacy Protection Act

The CPPA will replace Part 1 of PIPEDA, and govern the protection of personal information that organizations collect, use or disclose in the course of commercial activities. Highlights include:

  • Enhanced accountability: Private-sector organizations are required to implement a privacy management program which outlines policies, practices, and procedures to ensure compliance with CPPA, and provide access to the documents created under the program upon request by the Federal Privacy Commissioner.
  • Codification of consent requirements: The CPPA codifies and updates the consent requirements for the collection, use and disclosure of personal information. For instance, the CPPA sets out four components of valid consent, namely a requirement to inform an individual in plain language: the purposes for the collection, use and disclosure of the personal information (which have recording requirements); (b) the ways in which the information is to be collected, used or disclosed; (c) any reasonably foreseeable consequences of the collection, use or disclosure; (d) the specific type of information to be collected, used or disclosed; and, (e) the names or types of third parties to which the information may be disclosed.
  • Modernized information and access provisions: Upon request, organizations must inform individuals of whether it has personal information about them, how it uses the information, whether it has disclosed the information and to whom, and provide the individual access to the information. Organizations that use automated decision systems to make predictions, recommendations or decisions about an individual are also required, upon request, to explain how the system made the prediction, recommendation or decision about an individual and how the individuals’ personal information was used to do so. There are statutorily imposed deadlines for responding.
  • Updated prospective business transaction provisions: Organizations party to a prospective business transaction for which they will use and disclose personal information without knowledge and consent, in addition to the current PIPEDA requirements, will also be required to de-identify the personal information before it is used or disclosed and keep it de-identified until the transaction is completed. The organizations are also statutorily obligated to comply with the agreement currently mandated under PIPEDA.
  • Real consequences for non-compliance: The Federal Privacy Commissioner is empowered to conduct inquiries, order organizations to comply with the Act, and for certain contraventions may recommend to the new Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal that it impose a financial penalty. The Tribunal can order a penalty based on the Commissioner’s decision or its own decision on appeal. The maximum penalty is the higher of $10,000,000 or 3% of the organization’s gross global revenue in its previous financial year.
  • A private right of action: The CPPA also creates an independent, private right of action for individuals who suffer damage due to contraventions of CPPA where there have been adverse findings against the organization by the Commissioner or the Tribunal, or there has been a conviction for an offence. As a result, breach of the CPPA may result not only in an administrative penalty, but also a civil action, upping the stakes for organizations who fail to comply.

Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act

The PIDPTA should be read in concert with the CPPA. In short, the PIDPTA:

  • Creates the Tribunal: The PIDPTA creates the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal to hear appeals of decisions made by the Federal Privacy Commissioner and to impose penalties for certain contraventions of the CPPA.
  • Rules and procedures: The Tribunal is empowered, with approval from the Governor in Council, to make rules that are not inconsistent with the Act or the CPPA to govern its practice and procedure. Note that a civil standard of proof is statutorily imposed, but that the Tribunal is “not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence in conducting a hearing”, and is required to deal with all matters before it “as informally and expeditiously as the circumstances and considerations of fairness and natural justice permit”.
  • Method of review: The Tribunal must provide written decisions with reasons, which must be made available to the public. All decisions of the Tribunal are to be final and binding, subject only to judicial review under the Federal Courts Act.

Stewart McKelvey will continue to monitor the progress of Bill C-11, and to keep organizations informed of their new obligations. In the meantime, please contact our Privacy group should you require further information or assistance.


This article is provided for general information only. If you have any questions about the above, please contact a member of our Privacy group.

Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership articles and updates.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

TTC’s Random Testing Decision: A Bright Light for Employers in the Haze of Marijuana Legalization

April 11, 2017

Rick Dunlop In my December 15, 2016 article, Federal Government’s Cannabis Report: What does it mean for employers?, I noted the Report’s1 suggestion that there was a lack of research to reliably determine when individuals are impaired…

Read More

Unionization in the Construction Industry: Vacation Day + Snapshot Rule = Disenfranchisement

April 4, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Michelle Black On March 14, 2014, CanMar Contracting Limited (“CanMar”) granted a day off to two of its hard working and longer serving employees so they could spend time with their respective families. That…

Read More

Sometimes a bad deal is just a bad deal: unconscionability and insurance claim settlements in Downer v Pitcher, 2017 NLCA 13

March 16, 2017

Joe Thorne and Meaghan McCaw The doctrine of unconscionability is an equitable remedy available in exceptional circumstances where a bargain between parties, be it a settlement or a release, may be set aside on the basis that…

Read More

Privilege Prevails: Privacy Commissioner protects solicitor-client communications

March 16, 2017

Jonathan Coady After more than five years, the Prince Edward Island Information and Privacy Commissioner (the “Privacy Commissioner”) has completed her review into more than sixty records withheld by a local school board on the…

Read More

The Latest in Labour Law: A Stewart McKelvey Newsletter – Nova Scotia Teachers Union & Government – a synopsis

March 7, 2017

Peter McLellan, QC & Richard Jordan Introduction On February 21, 2017 the Nova Scotia Government passed Bill 75 – the Teachers’ Professional Agreement and Classroom Improvement (2017) Act. This Bulletin will provide some background to what is, today,…

Read More

Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Furlong: The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador weighs in on the former client rule in commercial transactions

March 1, 2017

Bruce Grant, QC and Justin Hewitt In the recent decision of Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Furlong1 the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador confirmed that where a law firm acts jointly for the borrower and lender in the placement…

Read More

The Ordinary Meaning of Insurance: Client Update on the SCC’s Decision in Sabean

February 21, 2017

The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Sabean v Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co, 2017 SCC 7 at the end of January, finally answering an insurance policy question that had divided the lower…

Read More

Client Update: Outlook for the 2017 Proxy Season

February 8, 2017

In preparing for the 2017 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

Client Update: The Future of Planning and Development on Prince Edward Island – Recent Amendments to the Planning Act

January 23, 2017

Perlene Morrison and Hilary Newman During the fall 2016 legislative sitting, the Province of Prince Edward Island passed legislation that results in significant changes to the Planning Act. The amendments received royal assent on December 15, 2016 and…

Read More

Plaintiffs’ medical reports – disclosure obligations in Unifund Assurance Company v. Churchill, 2016 NLCA 73

January 10, 2017

Joe Thorne1 and Justin Hewitt2 In Unifund Assurance Company v Churchill,3  the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal considered the application of our rules of court and the common law as they relate to disclosure of documents produced in…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top