The Canadian Privacy Law Blog: Developments in privacy law and writings of a Canadian privacy lawyer, containing information related to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (aka PIPEDA) and other Canadian and international laws.

On Twitter

About this page and the author

The author of this blog, David T.S. Fraser, is a Canadian privacy lawyer who practices with the firm of McInnes Cooper. He is the author of the Physicians' Privacy Manual. He has a national and international practice advising corporations and individuals on matters related to Canadian privacy laws.

For full contact information and a brief bio, please see David's profile.

Please note that I am only able to provide legal advice to clients. I am not able to provide free legal advice. Any unsolicited information sent to David Fraser cannot be considered to be solicitor-client privileged.

Privacy Calendar

Links

RSS FEED for this site

Blogs I Follow

Small Print

The views expressed herein are solely the author's and should not be attributed to his employer or clients. Any postings on legal issues are provided as a public service, and do not constitute solicitation or provision of legal advice. The author makes no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained herein or linked to. Nothing herein should be used as a substitute for the advice of competent counsel.

This web site is presented for informational purposes only. These materials do not constitute legal advice and do not create a solicitor-client relationship between you and David T.S. Fraser. If you are seeking specific advice related to Canadian privacy law or PIPEDA, contact the author, David T.S. Fraser.

Wednesday, June 23, 2004

PIPEDA Awareness Raising Tools (PARTs) Initiative For The Health Sector

Those concerned with the application of PIPEDA to the healthcare sector likely know about Industry Canada and Health Canada's "PIPEDA Awareness Raising Tools". One of the more recent additions is, in my view, incorrect.

"47. Under PIPEDA, can regulatory bodies/colleges still continue to conduct their investigative practices? Does PIPEDA require any changes in the manner in which these investigative activities are conducted?

The relationship between a regulatory body/college and its members is most often of a noncommercial nature, and therefore not captured by PIPEDA. These bodies are also generally empowered by law to obtain personal information as necessary to fulfill their various functions. Professionals subject to the authority of a regulatory body/college would in all likelihood have agreed to the use of their personal information by the body, as part of a condition of membership. PIPEDA recognizes such authority.

Regulatory bodies/colleges may, in the course of their function, need to obtain personal information from other organizations that are subject to PIPEDA, such as financial institutions. Such organizations may only disclose personal information without consent to entities that have been designated as "investigative bodies" under PIPEDA, by regulation. As such, regulatory bodies/colleges may be required to obtain this designation if they wish to obtain personal information from these organizations without an individual's consent."

The "investigative body" designation is only useful for the circumstances set out in s. 7(d):

(d) made on the initiative of the organization to an investigative body, a government institution or a part of a government institution and the organization

(i) has reasonable grounds to believe that the information relates to a breach of an agreement or a contravention of the laws of Canada, a province or a foreign jurisdiction that has been, is being or is about to be committed, or

(ii) suspects that the information relates to national security, the defence of Canada or the conduct of international affairs;

For this exception to apply, it has to be on the initiative of the organization (e.g. the physician), not the investigative body. You simply can't rely on it if the investigative body is the one requesting the information. Also, it only applies in the circumstances set out in (i) and (ii). The circumstances in (ii) would clearly be inapplicable and it is questionable whether the circumstances of (i) would come to pass in the course of an investigation by a College of Physicians and Surgeons. The better response is the application of sections 7(3)(c) and (i):

(3) For the purpose of clause 4.3 of Schedule 1, and despite the note that accompanies that clause, an organization may disclose personal information without the knowledge or consent of the individual only if the disclosure is ...

(c) required to comply with a subpoena or warrant issued or an order made by a court, person or body with jurisdiction to compel the production of information, or to comply with rules of court relating to the production of records;

(i) required by law.

Many professional regulators have jurisdiction to subpoena or otherwise compel the production of information in the custody of a physician. These exceptions are clearly preferable to those in 7(d). Some professional regulators, like those for social workers in Nova Scotia, don't have the power to compel the production of documents and are therefore unable to get this information without consent.

Labels: health information, information breaches