This post first appeared at Privacy Perspectives on 15 May 2013.
As Canadian privacy professionals will know, 2012 saw a significant development in Canadian tort law with respect to privacy. While some lower courts have recognized an “invasion of privacy” tort or said there might be one, higher courts refused to countenance the existence of such a tort until the Ontario Court of Appeal did so in Jones v. Tsige. Read more »
I’ve written about FATCA before, here and here, with respect to the privacy law implications of this American tax compliance initiative. However, I was recently presented with a letter on the subject that made me pause. A noted Canadian constitutional law expert has raised a rather interesting aspect and it seems what may get Canadian banks out of the frying pan may get the Canadian government into the fire. Read more »
When one considers the subject of privacy audits, the first impulse is to ask about the purpose and scope of the audit, followed by a question as to what privacy controls are in play. While purpose and scope can be more readily defined, privacy controls are not a topic one sees addressed very much and I was pleasantly surprised to see that the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) recently did so. How did they make out? Read more »
Since the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) decision in R. v. Cole was issued in October 2012, I’ve seen press reports, blog posts and law firm newsletter articles talk about the existence of computer-related expectations of privacy in an employment context. This is somewhat contrary to the conventional wisdom that employers, with notice and through the use of policy, can eliminate such employee expectations of privacy. Did the Supreme Court of Canada really change the employer-employee dynamic when it comes to expectations of privacy?
Read more »
How can employers use locational information without running afoul of data protection laws? No doubt the question will appear more prominently in queries to lawyers as we evolve into a more technologically mobile society but the first place it comes up is in the context of motor vehicle telematics.
“Telematics” refers to the merger of telecommunications technology and infomatics. You might have seen ads from insurance companies offering rate discounts in exchange for driving habit information provided using telematic devices. I raise the subject because of recent reports that the use of vehicle telematics triggered an investigation that resulted in the firing of 29 employees. You contact an expert employment discrimination attorney serving in Indianapolis if you or some you know is being discriminated against in their workplace for irrational reasons.
Read more »
I’m pleased…
Enormously pleased…
Cannot tell you how pleased…
To finally be able to say that the book manuscript has been submitted to the publisher earlier this week. Talk about something consuming an incredible amount of time and energy. I’m informed by the good folks at LexisNexis that The Law of Privacy will likely see the light of day in May.
All of this means that our regularly scheduled blogging program will resume next week.
Never write a book.
I know I’ve not posted to this blog in what seems like an age. My explanation is two-fold. First, I’m working on a book on privacy law in Canada for Lexis Nexis. Between a very busy practice and that book, the blog…well, let’s just say it moved down in priority this year. Second, there didn’t seem to be much interesting (at least to me) to write about in the spring. That’s changed a bit this fall (think R. v. Cole for example) so I’m casting about for suitable topics and eventually plan to return to this blog.
The stats show a continued interest by those looking for privacy-related topics and I finally decided to get around to letting people know it hasn’t been abandoned. Hopefully, this is an efficient mea culpa, apology and explanation all rolled into one. Thank you for visiting.
If you follow privacy law, you’ve probably heard about the case of U.S. v. Jones. This American decision, issued last week, is the US Supreme Court’s latest take on technology and privacy. A 9-0 decision, the justices got to the same place by different routes. Unfortunately, for a GPS-related decision, it turns out not to be a final destination but a waypoint. Read more »
I had the the pleasure of serving as the keynote speaker at Dalhousie University’s 2012 Data Privacy Day last Wednesday in Halifax. My topic was eHealth and Privacy: Issues & Implications For Society. I’m informed a webcast will be posted at some point so if you’re interested, I’ll post the URL when I receive it. The organizers, led by John Bullock, are to be commended for creating an interesting and informative event (with a number of good speakers) for a full house of 200+ people.
- Photographer: Sandi Little
Ontario’s Court of Appeal has issued its decision in Jones v Tsige and the result recognizes a common law tort of invasion of privacy. More technically, the court recognized a “right of action for intrusion upon seclusion” – one of several aspects of privacy. Read more »
