The Canadian Federal Court has rejected a Canadian Privacy Commissioner finding involving videosurveillance in a railway yard. After the Commissioner ruled in favour of the complainant in 2003, the complainant applied to the court for an order confirming the Commissioner’s decision. The court declined to do so, reaching several noteworthy conclusions. First, it ruled that PIPEDA should be classified as a fundamental law of Canada and can exist alongside the Canadian Labour Code. Second, the court ruled that it can accord the Privacy Commissioner some deference in the area of his or her expertise, though not on findings of fact. Third, the court ruled that this particular videosurveillance was reasonable and thus not a violation of PIPEDA. Case name is Eastmond v. Canadian Pacific Railway. see: Eastmond v. Canadian Pacific Railway also see: Bulte Committee Report