Law Times

June 2, 2014

The premier weekly newspaper for the legal profession in Ontario

Issue link: https://digital.lawtimesnews.com/i/321153

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 7 of 15

Page 8 June 2, 2014 • Law Times www.lawtimesnews.com Federal privacy bills Major increase in warrantless disclosures predicted By michael mcKiernan For Law Times rivacy lawyers expect a "dra- matic" increase in warrant- less disclosures of personal information by Internet ser- vice providers if the latest proposed amendments to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act take hold. PIPEDA currently allows voluntary disclosures of personal information without consent to government in- stitutions and investigative bodies for law enforcement and national security purposes. But lawyers say a clause in bill S-4, the digital privacy act, would significantly broaden both the circum- stances in which organizations can make disclosures and the range of pos- sible recipients. e bill passed second reading in the Senate in May. e next stage will see it head to the Senate com- mittee on transport and communica- tions for further study. Section 10 of the bill would amend PIPEDA to allow disclosure without consent when it's to "another organization and is rea- sonable for the purposes of investigating a breach of an agreement or a contravention of the laws of Canada or a province that has been, is being or is about to be commit- ted and it is reasonable to expect that disclosure with the knowledge or consent of the individual would compro- mise the investigation." "If this were to become the law, it would fundamen- tally change the current privacy protections that exist in our civil law regime," says Ren Bucholz, a commercial litigator with Lenczner Slaght Royce Smith Griffin LLP. "What's quite frankly shocking to me is the way this would empower private companies to investigate private disputes using the tools in this bill. It would be amaz- ing to me if these rules didn't dramatically increase the amount of private subscription information voluntarily provided." In his defamation and intellectual property practice, Bucholz says he frequently ends up in court seeking data from Internet service providers in an attempt to identify anonymous bloggers and copyright infringers. He says bill S-4 could eliminate the need in many cases for Nor- wich orders that compel third parties uninvolved in liti- gation to disclose relevant information. It's a situation he's uncomfortable with. "ere are presently good ways to do this well and ef- fectively. It just requires a judge to look at evidence and make a call as to whether or not it passes the sniff test. Here, you skip the judge and go directly to the record holder who has to judge for themselves whether or not what they've been told is accurate and reliable. You'll get some brave record holders who say they have no capacity to make that judgment and ask for a court order, but oth- ers are going to take the easy route." Barbara McIsaac, a privacy lawyer and counsel to the Ottawa office of Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, says the most prudent course of action for an Internet service provider or other record holder facing a request under the proposed amendments would be to err on the side of requesting a court order. "If you do simply turn over the information without considering whether the test has been met for disclosure, then you do face at least some prospect of civil liability," she says. According to McIsaac, there are plenty of non-liti- gation situations in which the proposed amendments would make life easier for private companies. "Organizations such as insurance companies can be- come aware of individuals committing serial fraud and there has always been a concern that they were limited in the extent to which they could share information about those frauds. ere are obvious advantages to being able to alert other people in the industry to a potential issue in a way that requires the disclosure of some personal infor- mation to make it understandable. But it's also open to abuse, which is where the difficulty arises." John Simpson, a lawyer with intel- lectual property and new media law firm Shi Law in Toronto, says his initial concern about the bill has de- creased over time. He says the fear of a public relations backlash will act as a natural bar to overzealous disclosure by Internet service providers and oth- er record holders. "ey have commercial interests to protect. It would take a toll on goodwill or their ability to get new customers if they became known to be handing over private information willy-nilly," he says. "e permissiveness of the regime is a big safety mechanism. I would be much more concerned if there was some sort of obligation to turn this in- formation over." But Bucholz says the secrecy built into the bill will make public scrutiny of record holders' disclosure prac- tices difficult. "e other pernicious thing about this is they don't have to tell the individual now or even later that the dis- closure has been made about them," he says. "I would think a relatively minor change would fix that flaw. Even if there is no notice today, you could build in some requirement to notify within 30 days or some other time frame." McIsaac says it's important to read bill S-4 in conjunc- tion with another piece of government legislation cur- rently before Parliament in order to understand the full extent of expanded warrantless disclosure of personal information. Bill C-13, the protecting Canadians from online crime act, contains provisions that would grant record holders immunity from civil or criminal liability related to voluntary disclosures made on request from police officers. "e combination means that restrictions in legisla- tion that were originally built around disclosure without a court order have been significantly weakened," she says. "e same committee will end up looking at both bills, so they're hopefully going to make the necessary linkages." LT The most prudent course of action for Internet service providers facing a request under the proposed amendments would be to ask for a court order, says Barbara McIsaac. Focus on Internet/E-commerce Law Visit carswell.com or call 1.800.387.5164 for a 30-day no-risk evaluation 1FSGFDUCPVOEȕ1VCMJTIFE%FDFNCFSFBDIZFBSPOTVCTDSJQUJPOȕ0OFUJNFQVSDIBTF- .VMUJQMFDPQZEJTDPVOUTBWBJMBCMF1SJDFTTVCKFDUUPDIBOHFXJUIPVUOPUJDFUPBQQMJDBCMFUBYFTBOETIJQQJOHIBOEMJOH 0/5"3*0-"8:&3'41)0/�, 5)&.045$0.1-&5&%*3&$503:0'0/5"3*0-"8:&34-"8'*3.4+6%(&4"/%$06354 8JUINPSFUIBOQBHFTPGFTTFOUJBMMFHBMSFGFSFODFTOntario Lawyer's Phone Book JTZPVSCFTUDPOOFDUJPO UPMFHBMTFSWJDFTJO0OUBSJP4VCTDSJCFSTDBOEFQFOEPOUIFDSFEJCJMJUZBDDVSBDZBOEDVSSFODZPGUIJTEJSFDUPSZ ZFBSBGUFSZFBS More detail and a wider scope of legal contact information for Ontario than any other source: ȕ 0WFS27,000 lawyers listed ȕ 0WFS9,000 law firms and corporate offices listed ȕ 'BYBOEUFMFQIPOFOVNCFSTFNBJMBEESFTTFTPGȮDFMPDBUJPOTBOEQPTUBMDPEFT Untitled-5 1 14-02-18 10:29 AM P

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Law Times - June 2, 2014