When it comes to privacy and data protection, I often tell people that that while “rules” are important, the “exceptions” matter more. A recent decision out of the Ontario Court of Appeal illustrates this point rather nicely. It concerns two banks, a debt, a mortgage discharge statement and PIPEDA.

There is a new and interesting decision out of Peterborough that raises but doesn’t answer a lot of questions. These questions revolve around the intersection of PHIPA, class action law and tort law. This is not something you see everyday although we may have to wait awhile before the dust (and the law) settles. 

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 […]

Tort law in Canada may take a new privacy-related turn if a recent press report is to be believed.

Last week saw a flurry of reports about the case of R. v. Cole. Cole is a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal involving charges of possession of child pornography. Two reports in the National Post and Globe and Mail suggest this is a groundbreaking decision with significant implications for employers across Canada with […]