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 200: Colin Bennett on the EU’s Surprising Adequacy Finding on Canadian Privacy Law
byMichael Geist
April 22, 2024
Michael Geist
April 15, 2024
Michael Geist
April 8, 2024
Michael Geist
March 25, 2024
Michael Geist
March 18, 2024
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Recent Posts
- The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 200: Colin Bennett on the EU’s Surprising Adequacy Finding on Canadian Privacy Law
- Debating the Online Harms Act: Insights from Two Recent Panels on Bill C-63
- The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 199: Boris Bytensky on the Criminal Code Reforms in the Online Harms Act
- AI Spending is Not an AI Strategy: Why the Government’s Artificial Intelligence Plan Avoids the Hard Governance Questions
- The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 198: Richard Moon on the Return of the Section 13 Hate Speech Provision in the Online Harms Act