Privacy practice tune-up – getting ready for the Consumer Privacy Protection Act
As we wrote about earlier, Canada’s federal government has proposed a replacement to our national privacy law for commercial transactions known as the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (“PIPEDA”).
The new bill is the Digital Charter Implementation Act, and this bill in turn would create a new Consumer Privacy Protection Act (“CPPA”) which would replace the privacy portion of PIPEDA.
The CPPA will likely not come into force for a year or more, while consultations and the drafting of regulations proceed.
However, the proposed CPPA does restate and expand on the existing privacy law requirements of PIPEDA, and if your business needs a privacy tune-up then CPPA can provide a useful guide, with better detail than PIPEDA offers now.
Privacy management program
For example, CPPA requires all organizations (including businesses) to implement a “privacy management program” including policies, practices and procedures for protection of personal information, complaints handling, training of personnel and for explaining these practices to the public. This program must take into account the “volume and sensitivity of the personal information” under the organization’s control.
CPPA also obliges an organization to provide the federal Privacy Commissioner with access to all policies, practices and procedures of its privacy management program, merely upon request, which of course could give the Commissioner a good look into any program gaps. If the Commissioner has reasonable grounds to believe that a breach of privacy obligations has occurred, then the Commissioner may choose to “audit” these practices.
Further detail on consent
The required consent for use of personal information is also described in CPPA in greater detail, and states that consent is only valid if at or before the time that the organization seeks the individual’s consent, it provides the following information in “plain language”:
(a) the purposes for the collection, use or disclosure;
(b) the way in which the personal information is to be collected, used or disclosed;
(c) any reasonably foreseeable consequences of the collection, use or disclosure of the personal information;
(d) the specific type of personal information that is to be collected, used or disclosed; and
(e) the names of any third parties or types of third parties to which the organization may disclose the personal information.
Consent must be obtained at or before collection, and must be express unless it is appropriate to rely on implied consent, taking into account the reasonable expectations of the individual and the sensitivity of the personal information.
Plain language privacy policies
CPPA also gives clearer guidance on privacy policies to be made available to customers and others providing personal information, which must again be in “plain language” and include at least the following:
(a) a description of the type of personal information under the organization’s control;
(b) a general account of how the organization makes use of personal information, including how the organization applies any permitted exceptions;
(c) a general account of the organization’s use of any automated decision system (e.g. AI systems) to make predictions, recommendations or decisions about individuals that could have significant impacts on them;
(d) whether or not the organization carries out any international or interprovincial transfer or disclosure of personal information that may have reasonably foreseeable privacy implications;
(e) how an individual may make a request for disposal or access; and
(f) the business contact information for your privacy officer.
While the policy requirements above about automated decision systems and international and interprovincial transfers are part of many policies now, they are new as express requirements of the law.
Therefore, all businesses that may be considering a tune-up of their privacy practices and policies should review the standards as outlined in the proposed CPPA, including those above.
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.
Archive
By Brian Tabor, QC and Colin Piercey Bill 81 and Bill 15, receiving Royal Assent in 2013 and 2014 respectively, are due to take effect this month. On June 30, 2017, amendments to the Builders’…
Read MoreNew Brunswick continues to be a thought leader in the field of regulation of recreational cannabis and provides us with a first look at what the provincial regulation of recreational cannabis might look like. New…
Read MoreRick Dunlop and Richard Jordan In Stewart v. Elk Valley Coal Corporation, 2017 SCC 30, a six-judge majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) confirmed a Tribunal decision which concluded that the dismissal of an…
Read MoreBy Kevin Landry New Brunswick’s Working Group on the Legalization of Cannabis released an interim report on June 20, 2017. It is a huge step forward in the legalization process and the first official look at how legalization…
Read MoreRick Dunlop and Kevin Landry As we explained in The Cannabis Act- Getting into the Weeds, the Cannabis Act introduces a regulatory regime for recreational marijuana in Canada. The regime promises to be complex. The details of legalization will be…
Read MoreOn April 1, 2017, the New Brunswick Lobbyists’ Registration Act was proclaimed into force (the “Act”), requiring active professional consultant or in-house lobbyists to register and file returns with the Office of the Integrity Commissioner of New…
Read MoreJoe Thorne and Jessica Habet How far can an insurer dig into the Plaintiff’s history to defend a claim? And how much information is an insurer entitled to have in order to do so? In English v.…
Read MoreNeil Jacobs, QC, Joe Thorne and Meaghan McCaw The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal recently confirmed that accounting/auditing firms may take on several mandates in respect of companies that may or do become insolvent in Wabush Hotel Limited…
Read MoreJoe Thorne and Brandon Gillespie An independent medical examination (“IME”) is a useful tool for insurers. An IME is an objective assessment of the claimant’s condition for the purpose of evaluating coverage and compensation. Where a…
Read MoreOn June 2, 2017 the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Saadati v. Moorhead, 2017 SCC 28, clarifying the evidence needed to establish mental injury. Neither expert evidence nor a diagnosed psychiatric illness…
Read More