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
Canadian Fed Ct Rejects Privacy Commish Surveillance Finding
June 18, 2004
Share this post
Law Bytes
Episode 197: Divest, Ban or Regulate?: Anupam Chander on the Global Fight Over TikTok
byMichael Geist
March 25, 2024
Michael Geist
March 18, 2024
Michael Geist
March 11, 2024
Michael Geist
February 26, 2024
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Recent Posts
- Tweets Are Not Enough: Why Combatting Relentless Antisemitism in Canada Requires Real Leadership and Action
- The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 197: Divest, Ban or Regulate? – Anupam Chander on the Global Fight Over TikTok
- The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 196: Vibert Jack on the Supreme Court’s Landmark Bykovets Internet Privacy Ruling
- Better Laws, Not Bans: Why a TikTok Ban is a Bad Idea
- Government Gaslighting Again?: Unpacking the Uncomfortable Reality of the Online Harms Act