Canadian Technology & IP Law : Canadian Technology Lawyers & Attorneys : Stikeman Elliott Law Firm : IP Law in Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, Ottawa & Vancouver

David Elder -

Legislative amendments proclaimed in force last week mean that the Privacy Commissioner of Canada may now be more selective about the complaints her office decides to investigate.

The amendments in question, made to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), were actually contained in Bill C-28, Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation, which received Royal Assent last December.  Although most of that statute is not yet in force (and, as we noted on our Canadian Communications Law blog, may be delayed in coming into force by the federal election call), last week the Governor in Council proclaimed in force some of the consequential amendments in that bill that affect PIPEDA, leaving for proclamation at a later date those PIPEDA amendments that coordinate with new obligations in the Anti-Spam law itself.

• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Email This
• Print

The Ontario Superior Court has held that there is no common law tort of invasion of privacy in Ontario (Jones v. Tsige, 2011 ONSC 1475) . In coming to its decision, the Court emphasized the existence of statutory schemes that govern privacy issues.

The plaintiff claimed that the defendant, her co-worker at a bank, had committed the tort of invasion of privacy by accessing the plaintiff’s private banking records without authorization.

The case law on this issue was mixed as some Ontario court decisions had accepted the existence of this type of tort and others had not.

• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Email This
• Print