Team Members ()

Publications ()

News ()

Pages ()

Services ()

  • Our Team

    Our Team

    • Lawyers & Clerks
    • Leadership Team
    • Board of Directors
    • Human Resources
    • Marketing & Business Development
    • Paraprofessional Services
  • Our Services

    Our Services

    • Service Areas
      • Aboriginal and Indigenous Law
      • Administrative Law
      • Agribusiness
      • Banking and Financial Services
      • Bankruptcy and Insolvency
      • Business Disputes
      • Business Immigration
      • Class Actions
      • Construction Law
      • Corporate and Business
      • Corporate Finance and Securities
      • Corporate Governance and Compliance
      • Cross-Border Law
      • Education Law
      • ESG (Environmental, Social, & Governance)
      • Estates and Trusts
      • Environmental Law
      • Foreign Direct Investment
      • Franchise Law
      • Health Law
      • Insurance
      • Intellectual Property
      • Labour and Employment
      • Litigation
      • Maritime Law
      • Media & Entertainment
      • Municipal Law
      • P3 and Infrastructure
      • Pensions and Benefits
      • Privacy, Data Protection and Cyber Security
      • Public Law
      • Real Estate
      • Regulation of Professions
      • SISIP LTD Allowances Class Action
      • Tax
      • Technology
      • View All
    • Industries
      • Cannabis
      • Construction & Property Development
      • Emerging & High Growth Companies
      • Energy & Natural Resources
      • Financial Services
      • Government & Institutions
      • Insurance
      • Manufacturing, Processing & Sales
      • Mining
      • Ocean Economy
      • Private Clients
      • Technology
      • View All
    • More Services
      • MC Advisory
      • MC Legal Lab
  • Our Insights
  • Our Firm

    Our Firm

    • Our Values
    • Our History
    • Our Representative Work
    • Our Global Reach
    • Our News
    • Diversity & Inclusion
    • Collective Social Responsibility
    • Pro Bono Program
  • Our Careers

    Our Careers

    • Lawyer Opportunities
    • Business Professional Opportunities
    • Paralegal & Legal Assistant Opportunities
    • Summer Student & Articling Opportunities
    • Diversity & Inclusion
    • Collective Social Responsibility
  • 1.866.439.6246
  • Contact
  • Search
  • Stay Updated
  • Contact Us
  • LexMundi World Ready
  • Privacy Policy
  • http://linkedin.com
  • http://facebook.com
  • http://twitter.com
  • 1.866.439.6246
Home > Our Insights > Digital Privacy Act Mandatory Data Breach Response Obligations: 5 Key Focus Areas For Your Compliance Plan
Publication

Digital Privacy Act Mandatory Data Breach Response Obligations: 5 Key Focus Areas For Your Compliance Plan

Published:

August 20, 2018

Author(s):

  • David Fraser
  • Sarah Anderson Dykema, CIPP/C

Share

Print

Every organization subject to Canada’s Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) –  every organization that collects, uses and discloses personal information in the course of commercial activity in Canada – must ensure they comply with the Digital Privacy Act’s new mandatory data breach response requirements as of November 1, 2018  – or face significant non-compliance consequences.

Basic data breach risk management planning, including steps to reduce the risk of breaches in the first place and creating action plans to ensure readiness for when breaches do occur, are key to ensuring compliance in this evolving legal landscape. But complying with these new obligations won’t happen overnight: the new record-keeping, reporting and notification rules are strict and onerous and the advance preparation necessary to reduce the associated liability and reputational risks when a breach does occur requires time and coordination of external expertise and internal stakeholders.

Here are five key areas to focus on when preparing to comply with the Digital Privacy Act’s mandatory data breach response requirements.

  1. Understand the New Obligations – Well

In preparing for compliance as of November 1, 2018, it’s critical that organizations understand what the requirements are and when the new obligations – record-keeping, reporting and notification – are triggered. Organizations will then need to implement policies and procedures aligned with the law. A thorough privacy gap analysis of existing policies and procedures will allow organizations to identify where risks are, and where to focus compliance efforts.

The Digital Privacy Act’s new data breach reporting and notification obligations are only triggered when there’s a “breach of security safeguards” involving personal information under an organization’s control, where it’s reasonable in the circumstances for the organization to believe the breach creates a real risk of significant harm to an individual. But the new record-keeping obligation is triggered when there’s any “breach of security safeguards” – no matter how trivial or insignificant the breach is. The new regime includes some old and some new terminology – and the meanings aren’t always defined or intuitive. Key terms include:

“Sensitivity of information”. The obligation of organizations to protect personal information by security safeguards “appropriate to the sensitivity of the information” against loss or theft, unauthorized access, disclosure, copying, use or modification, isn’t new. Neither the Digital Privacy Act nor the Breach of Security Safeguard Regulations define “sensitivity”. However, PIPEDA does offer some examples, noting that while “some information (for example, medical records and income records) is almost always considered to be sensitive”, organizations must be aware that “any information can be sensitive, depending on the context. For example, a person’s name on a list of people who went to a hockey game isn’t likely “sensitive”; their name on a list of people being treated by a psychiatrist likely is.

“Appropriate” safeguards. When considering what safeguards are “reasonable” and appropriate to the sensitivity of the information, organizations should use common sense and risk management concepts, and consider the possible harm of a breach: more sensitive information should be safeguarded by a higher level of protection. When determining what this means practically, consider the “standard of care” that has developed in your organization’s industry, adopt that – and then go one better. Imagine a customer’s lawyer cross-examining you in a lawsuit and asking, “why didn’t you do [insert a reasonable and appropriate safeguard option here]?”

“Breach of Security Safeguards”. What amounts to a “breach of security safeguards” under the Digital Privacy Act doesn’t necessarily align with the general understanding of security or privacy breaches: the definition is very broad, capturing “breaches” that are commonplace and that most wouldn’t consider to amount to a “data breach” justifying action. The Act defines (and adds this definition to PIPEDA’s definitions) a “breach of security safeguards” as “the loss of, unauthorized access to or unauthorized disclosure of personal information resulting from a breach of an organization’s security safeguards that are referred to in clause 4.7 of Schedule 1 [the existing safeguarding obligations], or from a failure to establish those safeguards.” In short, there must be a loss of, unauthorized access to, or unauthorized disclosure of, personal information that’s either caused by a breach of security safeguards, or that’s the result of not having safeguards in place. Under this new definition of a “breach of security safeguards”, each of these common scenarios is a breach of which the organization must make and maintain a record, and evaluate for purposes of reporting and notification:

  • An employee violates the employer’s “clean desk policy”, and a co-worker from another department sees a customer record.
  • An employee allows their child to use their smart phone, which also contains customer information.
  • An employee flying on a business trip decides to use the plane time to work on a report, and the passenger behind them can see the employee’s laptop screen.

“Real risk” of “significant harm”. The Act’s mandatory reporting and notification obligations are only triggered when there’s a “breach of security safeguards” involving personal information under an organization’s control, where it’s reasonable in the circumstances for the organization to believe the breach creates a real risk of significant harm to an individual. The Breach of Security Safeguards Regulations define “significant harm” to include bodily harm, humiliation, damage to reputation or relationships, loss of employment, business or professional opportunities, financial loss, identity theft, negative effects on the credit record and damage to or loss of property. However, they don’t offer guidance to help organizations determine when there’s a “real risk” of such harm. When assessing whether it’s reasonable to believe a “breach of security safeguards” involving personal information creates a “real risk” of significant harm to an individual, consider the sensitivity of the personal information involved in the breach and the probability that the personal information has been, is being, or will be misused. For example, compare the accidental loss of an encrypted hard drive to an intentional theft of data: where the information was targeted, it’s more reasonable to believe malevolent intent and a high likelihood of misuse – and thus a “real risk” of significant harm.

  1. Deal With Third-Party Contractor Risks

Review key third-party contracts to ensure they include accountability mechanisms for enabling, monitoring and verifying their compliance with the new requirements. This is an often overlooked – but critical – step in preparing for compliance with the Digital Privacy Act and mitigating the risks of non-compliance: under the Digital Privacy Act, an organization could be responsible for any breaches by a third party in relation to personal information to which that third party has access or with which the third party is dealing on the organization’s behalf. And if the third party might subcontract with another party, and that subcontractor will have access to the data or personal information collected on the organization’s behalf, the organization should endeavor to negotiate the requirement that such subcontracting is subject to the organization’s consent and agreement, and ideally require the subcontractor to enter into an agreement directly with the organization subjecting it to the same security obligations and breach consequences as those applicable to the third party.

  1. Deal With Employee Risks

An organization’s weakest link in terms of privacy vulnerability and liability exposure is its own employees. Organizations (and the media) often place the data security focus on “outside” security threats: an external third party accessing an organization’s data, and particularly the personal information of its customers and employees, in highly publicized “cyber-attacks”.  There’s no doubt this is a risk that organizations must be aware of and that they must mitigate against. But in fact, most data breaches are caused by an organization’s own employees, whether accidental (such as forgetting their laptop on a bus) or malevolent (such as intentionally browsing or accessing data for no work-related reason). Therefore, implementing a plan to avoid and handle data breaches by its own employees is an important aspect of an organization’s data breach risk mitigation plan generally. But it’s particularly important under the Digital Privacy Act’s new data beach response requirements because more employee “breaches” are likely to occur: the new definition of a “breach of security safeguards” means the reporting obligation (and analysis for reporting and notification purposes) will be triggered for common scenarios that organizations might not ordinarily consider privacy breaches requiring action, such as an employee allowing their child to use their smart phone that contains customer information, violating a “clean desk” policy, or using their a laptop in a public space. This means organizations must pay close attention to an employee action plan in preparation for the new mandatory data breach response obligations, including:

  • Training & Policies. Organizations must ensure their employee policies and training reflect the definition of a “breach of security safeguards” in an effort to reduce the frequency of trivial breaches occurring – and the administrative costs they will create due to the new record-keeping, reporting and notification obligations.
  • Internal breach reporting. Similarly, organizations must develop a culture that allows employees to report breaches without unreasonable fear of reprisals or discipline, helping to ensure accurate internal reporting and recording of such breaches.
  • Vicarious liability. More lawsuits for alleged data breaches are on the horizon. Employers are vicariously liable for the acts of their employees in the course of their employment – including data breaches. And even if the employer had insured against such a liability claim, no organization can insure against the reputational damage that would result.
  1. Paper Trail

The new record-keeping and reporting requirements will translate into a significant change in procedures and resource-allocation for many organizations. Documentation can be a complex task in itself. And organizations should keep in mind that when planning for compliance and when complying, they are creating a discoverable (that is, materials that must be disclosed) paper trail for future litigation. When preparing for the paperwork under the Act, consider:

  • Resources. The new record-keeping obligations are onerous: the broad definition of a “breach of security safeguards” means there will be more breaches and the record-keeping obligation means the organization must record them all – every single one, no matter how trivial. For some organizations, this will require significant resources – and organizations must take care to allocate sufficient resources to this function.
  • Form of Records. The Regulations don’t specify what information a record must contain. But based on the fact the Regulations say a report to the Privacy Commissioner can be used as a record of the breach, it seems reasonable to conclude the record should include the information the report to the Privacy Commissioner must contain, plus a full analysis of how the organization concluded the particular breach doesn’t result in a “real risk of significant harm”. Creating a standardized template form will help ensure complete record-keeping – and proof of compliance, should litigation arise.
  • Form of Privacy Commissioner Reports. The Privacy Commissioner has a preferred reporting form. However, legal advice is strongly encouraged before filing such a report because the report will likely be evidence in any subsequent lawsuit and you want to avoid inadvertently waiving legal privilege.
  1. Protect Your Legal Privilege

The mandatory notification requirements will place more organizations under public scrutiny – and likely accelerate the upward trend in data breach class action lawsuits. It’s imperative that an organization make every effort to protect all if its preparatory materials, especially those that identify any privacy and security risks in their organization, by legal privilege. If not, the materials the organization creates to understand their risks will be available to the Privacy Commissioner in any investigation – and can be used against the organization in a civil lawsuit.

Simple “confidentiality” isn’t the same as “privilege”, and in a lawsuit the parties must disclose to the other party(ies) all relevant confidential – but not privileged – records. And merely marking a document “privileged” doesn’t make it so; legal privilege arises where the communication record, work product, and so forth is created for one of these purposes:

  • Obtaining legal advice from a lawyer (called “legal advice privilege”).
  • Preparing for actually anticipated litigation (called “litigation privilege”).

If an organization retains a lawyer for assistance in preparing to comply with the new Digital Privacy Act obligations, it’s important to frame the retainer as one seeking legal advice about legal risk and legal compliance. Consultants can’t provide privilege, but their work product might be privileged – if it’s prepared on behalf of their client for the purpose of seeking legal advice. If an organization retains a consultant, retain them for this purpose. There’s no guarantee taking these steps will protect the materials with legal privilege, but they will at least position the organization to argue that it does.


Please contact your McInnes Cooper lawyer or any member of the Privacy Law Team @ McInnes Cooper to discuss this topic or any other legal issue.


McInnes Cooper has prepared this document for information only; it is not intended to be legal advice. You should consult McInnes Cooper about your unique circumstances before acting on this information. McInnes Cooper excludes all liability for anything contained in this document and any use you make of it.

© McInnes Cooper, 2018. All rights reserved. McInnes Cooper owns the copyright in this document. You may reproduce and distribute this document in its entirety as long as you do not alter the form or the content and you give McInnes Cooper credit for it. You must obtain McInnes Cooper’s consent for any other form of reproduction or distribution. Email us at [email protected] to request our consent.

Share

Print
View Related Content

Related Lawyers

  • David Fraser

    David Fraser

    Privacy Lawyer | Partner

  • Sarah Anderson Dykema, CIPP/C

    Sarah Anderson Dykema, CIPP/C

    Partner

Related Services

  • Privacy, Data Protection and Cyber Security
  • Technology

Related Industries

  • Technology

Related Publications

View All Publications
  • Privacy Commissioner Calls Retailer Out On Consent Requirements

    Feb 1, 2023

    On January 26, 2023, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) released a report of findings requiring companies using targeted…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Hacked Companies Can’t Be Tagged With “Intrusion Upon Seclusion”

    Jan 26, 2023

    In November 2022, the Ontario Court of Appeal definitively decided an organization whose information systems are breached by a malicious third…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Webinar | Preparing for Canada’s New Consumer Privacy Protection Act (CPPA)

    Jul 20, 2022

    There’s a new privacy law coming to Canada. In June, the federal government introduced a complete overhaul of the privacy law regime that both…

    Read More
    Webinar
  • Canada’s New Consumer Privacy Protection Act (CPPA): 12 PIPEDA Differences

    Jun 30, 2022

    On June 16, 2022, the federal government took a second shot at a complete overhaul of the private sector privacy law regime that both protects…

    Read More
    Webinar
  • Should You Incorporate Your Cryptocurrency Activity? 6 Crypto Taxation FAQs

    May 20, 2022

    On May 22, 2010 (affectionately known as “Bitcoin Pizza Day”), a Floridian bought two Papa John's pizzas with Bitcoin. The day is famous…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Smart Contracts & Automated Contracts: 5 FAQs

    Jan 25, 2022

    More and more people are using smart contracts: the global smart contracts market was valued at USD $145M in 2020; it’s projected to be valued…

    Read More
    Publication
  • 6 (Liability) Reasons to Mitigate Your Privacy & Data Breach Risks

    Dec 16, 2021

    We updated this publication on December 21, 2022. The name of the game is to have a plan to mitigate the risk that a data breach will happen…

    Read More
    Publication
  • 5 Key Privacy FAQs for Startups & Growing Businesses

    Jan 26, 2021

    We udpated this publication on March 4, 2022. Privacy is critical to every business in every sector, including startups and growing…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Using Social Media Influencer Marketing: 6 Legal Tips

    Dec 2, 2020

    Using social media influencers and micro-influencers is an increasingly effective marketing strategy. Social media use is pervasive; 94% of…

    Read More
    Publication
  • 10 Ways Canada’s Consumer Privacy Protection Act (CPPA) Will Impact Privacy Practices

    Nov 19, 2020

    This publication has been updated as at June 30, 2022. NOTE: On June 16, 2022, the Government of Canada introduced Bill C-27:  Digital…

    Read More
    Publication
  • What’s the Deal? Creating, Interpreting & Enforcing Electronic Contracts

    Nov 17, 2020

    Spurred by the COVID-19 Pandemic and bricks-and-mortar closures, businesses - from SMEs to multinationals, startups to mature businesses,…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Playing it Safe: Employer Obligations To Employees Working From Home

    Aug 12, 2020

    This publication has been updated as of May 5, 2021. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has led many employees to continue working from home, by…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller: One-Sided Standard Form Clauses May Be Unenforceable

    Jul 6, 2020

    On June 26, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada released Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller, a much-awaited decision regarding the enforceability of…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Top 5 Legal Considerations When Launching a FINTECH Startup

    Jun 12, 2020

    The financial technology (Fintech) industry uses technology to support and enhance financial and banking services.

    Read More
    Publication
  • What the Privacy Commissioner’s New PIPEDA “Meaningful Consent” Guidelines Mean for Organizations

    Mar 28, 2019

    Organizations subject to Canada’s Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) – those that collect, use or…

    Read More
    Publication
  • What did you expect? Supreme Court of Canada’s highly nuanced “expectation of privacy” analysis in R. v. Jarvis

    Feb 20, 2019

    On February 14, 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada decided yet another criminal law decision that will likely have broader ramifications for…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Privacy Interest in Personal Computer Contents: Supreme Court of Canada Confirms Ownership Isn’t 9/10 of the Law in R. v. Reeves

    Dec 19, 2018

    On December 13, 2018, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that a third party can’t waive a person’s right to privacy or their rights under…

    Read More
    Publication
  • The Digital Privacy Act: 5 FAQs About the Mandatory Data Breach Response Obligations Effective November 1, 2018

    Aug 3, 2018

    As of November 1, 2018, organizations in Canada subject to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) will face…

    Read More
    Publication
  • 10 Key Terms to Make Clear in Every Software Licensing Agreement

    Jul 18, 2018

    Most businesses – from startups to SMEs to multi-nationals, and from private family-owned businesses to public corporations – will use…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Defining the Boundaries: Protecting Privacy & Privilege of Digital Content @ the Canadian Border

    Jun 13, 2018

    Businesspeople (and their legal counsel) are on the road more than ever before: according to Statistics Canada, while Canada-U.S. traffic is…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Jurisdiction Over Internet Defamation: Same Law, Different Facts in Haaretz v. Goldhar

    Jun 11, 2018

    On June 6, 2018, the Supreme Court of Canada considered the test for jurisdiction over an allegedly defamatory Internet article – the…

    Read More
    Publication
  • The Global Talent Stream: 5 Practical Learnings About the Latest Immigration Star

    May 24, 2018

    The Global Talent Stream is the central pillar of the Government of Canada’s recently launched Global Skills Strategy: an immigration program…

    Read More
    Publication
  • More Valuable Than Money? The 5 Most Common Equity Compensation Plans

    Apr 2, 2018

    Equity compensation plans are a valuable and versatile tool for many corporations, from early-stage startups to established blue-chips.…

    Read More
    Publication
  • The Legal Reality: Canadian Appeal Court decides “Virtual Presence” is enough for production order for user information against non-Canadian company in British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Brecknell

    Jan 12, 2018

    Whether a provincial court will grant police a “production order” under the Criminal Code of Canada requiring a non-Canadian company to…

    Read More
    Publication
  • 10 Legal Considerations When Incorporating Your Startup

    Nov 16, 2017

    Corporations are the leading business vehicle in modern commerce. For startups, properly structuring and incorporating is critical to avoid…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Protect Your Assets: 3 Best Practices for Intellectual Property (IP) Owners

    Oct 31, 2017

    Intellectual Property (IP) can be a valuable asset – even the most valuable asset – of a business. So it’s worth making sure the business…

    Read More
    Publication
  • The Federal Court of Canada Puts the “Fair” in the Copyright Act’s “Fair Dealing” Exceptions in Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency v. York University

    Jul 18, 2017

    On July 12, 2017, the Federal Court of Canada made it clear that there are but two ways to avoid a tariff set by the Copyright Board of Canada…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Steering clear of personal liability for oppression: Supreme Court of Canada offers guidance to corporate leaders in Wilson v. Alharayeri

    Jul 17, 2017

    A corporation does not always sail in calm or safe waters. Cash shortages, unattainable or unmet goals, Board disagreements over the best course…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Growing Your Business: 3 Structuring Solutions

    Jul 13, 2017

    When growing your business, you face many decisions, including choosing the business structure that is right for you. Your legal team can be…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Go Global @ Home: Supreme Court of Canada Confirms Global Order to Remove Internet Content in Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc.

    Jun 28, 2017

    On June 28, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed a Canadian court can issue an interlocutory injunction (an order requiring an entity or…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Like it or Not: Supreme Court of Canada decides class action against Facebook can go ahead in B.C. – despite its terms of use in Douez v. Facebook, Inc.

    Jun 23, 2017

    On June 23, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that in a contest between the choice of forum clause in Facebook’s online terms of use…

    Read More
    Publication
  • An Early Canada (Anti Spam Legislation) Day Gift! CASL Private Right of Action Repealed

    Jun 7, 2017

    On June 7, 2017, the federal government repealed the regulations that would have brought into effect the sections of Canada’s Anti Spam…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Daniel Watt and Sara Mahaney in Gard Update: Legal privilege in the corporate context in Canada

    Apr 6, 2017

    Adding a third jurisdiction to Gard Update’s comparison between privilege in the corporate context under U.S. and English law, McInnes Cooper…

    Read More
    Publication
  • 5 Steps for Compliant Disclosure on Social Media

    Mar 30, 2017

    Social media platforms, like Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube, Facebook and GooglePlus, arguably have more followers and are more closely…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Information Technology (IT) Contracts: 3 Key Lessons for Customers & Service Providers

    Mar 30, 2017

    There are very few examples of a Canadian court interpreting and opining on the provisions of an information technology contract. So the Ontario…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Cyber Security: A 5-Step Data Breach Risk Mitigation Plan for Corporate Boards & Directors

    Feb 24, 2017

    This publication has been updated as at January 12, 2023. Many organization (66%) store the personal information of customers. employees,…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Confidentiality Risks of Doing Business With the Public Sector Just Got Riskier: Completed NS Access to Information Requests Go Online

    Jan 25, 2017

    Doing business with the public sector creates an often overlooked – but very real – risk that the confidential information a business…

    Read More
    Publication
  • The Atlantic Link: 5 Key Questions About the Electrifying Opportunity to Connect to a New Renewable Energy Market

    Jan 13, 2017

    On January 11, 2017, Emera Inc. offered an electrifying opportunity for renewable energy developers to potentially access the New England…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Time to Shine: Nova Scotia to Launch Solar Energy Pilot Program in 2017

    Dec 15, 2016

    On December 13, 2016, the Province of Nova Scotia released for comment draft regulations that will establish the Solar for Community Buildings…

    Read More
    Publication
  • 10 Steps to Anticipate Citizens’ Challenges to New Developments

    Dec 7, 2016

    Recently, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court denied a motion for a temporary stay of proceedings to prevent the deployment of certain tidal devices…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Supreme Court of Canada Says Privilege Wins Again – Twice in Lizotte v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada & Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. University of Calgary

    Nov 28, 2016

    On November 25, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada decided privilege wins again - twice. In two separate decisions - Lizotte v. Aviva Insurance…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Supreme Court of Canada Warns Judgment Creditors: Implied Consent is Enough to Disclose Discharge Statement in Royal Bank of Canada v. Trang

    Nov 22, 2016

    On November 17, 2016 the Supreme Court of Canada decided a mortgagee has the mortgagor’s implied consent to disclose its discharge statement…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Founders Shareholders’ Agreement: Key Considerations, Terms & Complementary Agreements

    Oct 21, 2016

    All shareholders – whether in a startup, a small or large business or a family-owned business – can benefit from a shareholders’…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Protect Your Assets: An Intellectual Property (IP) Primer

    Oct 19, 2016

    We updated this publication on January 17, 2023. For many businesses, large and small, their “Intellectual Property” (IP) is one of their…

    Read More
    Publication
  • 3 Key Employment Law Steps to Take Now to Help You Sell Later

    Oct 19, 2016

    Business owners wear many hats – including employer. Your employees may be your business’s greatest asset, but they could also be your…

    Read More
    Publication
  • From Startup to Exit: 5 Key Stages of the Financing Lifecycle

    May 10, 2016

    This publication has been updated as at April 18, 2022. Access to sufficient capital is always a business issue, from the startup stage right…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Doing Business With the Public Sector: Key Confidentiality Risks & 3 Risk Management Strategies

    Mar 24, 2016

    When a business responds to a public sector Request for Proposal or Expression of Interest (both of which we’ll refer to as an RFP for these…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Doe 464533 v. D.: Business Implications of the Civil Privacy Claim for “Public Disclosure of Private Facts”

    Jan 27, 2016

    On January 21, 2016, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dramatically expanded the scope of legal privacy protection – and the liability…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Ontario Court Provides Guidelines to Balance Privacy Rights & “Tower Dumps” in R v. Rogers Communications

    Jan 18, 2016

    On January 14, 2016, the Ontario Superior Court decided that Canadians have a clear privacy interest in their records of their cellular…

    Read More
    Publication
  • New Kid on the Block: Crowdfunding Joins Traditional Equity-Based Funding Options for Startups & SMEs

    Oct 19, 2015

    Access to sufficient capital to fund operations, research and development, and other costs is a key challenge for start-ups and for some small…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL): The Top 3 Lessons Businesses Can Learn from Year 1

    Sep 29, 2015

    The anti-spam sections of Canada’s Anti-spam Legislation (CASL) took effect on July 1, 2014 amidst hype, controversy and dire warnings. Were…

    Read More
    Publication
  • A Glimpse Into The Future of Privacy Law: Medical Marijuana Privacy Breach Class Action Lawsuit Can Go Ahead in John Doe and Suzie Jones v. Her Majesty the Queen

    Jul 29, 2015

    On July 27, 2015, the Federal Court of Canada decided a lawsuit by medical marijuana program participants against the Federal Government…

    Read More
    Publication
  • The New NS Missing Persons Act: 5 Privacy Implications for Businesses, Organizations & Public Bodies

    Jun 2, 2015

    Effective April 22, 2015 the NS Government enacted the NS Missing Persons Act, lowering the threshold for police to get an order to access…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Wait a Minute Mr. Postman … 3 Lessons Health Canada’s Privacy Breach Delivers to the Private Sector

    Mar 25, 2015

    On March 3, 2015 Canada’s Privacy Commissioner determined that Health Canada breached privacy laws by mailing letters to over 40,000 Marihuana…

    Read More
    Publication
  • No Messing Around – $1.1M First Penalty for Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL) Violations by Compu-Finder

    Mar 6, 2015

    On March 5, 2015, the Canadian Radio and Television Commission (the CRTC, the main agency charged with administering and enforcing most of CASL)…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Privacy in Basic Cell Phones: SCC Continues Trend of Privacy Protection in R. v. Fearon

    Dec 11, 2014

    On December 11, 2014 the Supreme Court of Canada continued its trend to recognize privacy rights – and develop the law to protect them –…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL) Software Installation Sections: 10 FAQs

    Dec 11, 2014

    On January 15, 2015, the software provisions of Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL) will take effect.  CASL’s anti-spam sections, touted…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Complying with Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL): A blueprint for the construction industry

    Dec 1, 2014

    The construction industry - project owners, contractors, subcontractors and trades - might be relaxing, ignoring the hype around Canada’s…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Complying With Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL): Protecting Directors & Officers from Personal Liability

    Oct 14, 2014

    CASL’s anti-spam sections came into force on July 1, 2014. Every organization that CASL affects should now be complying with it – and their…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Complying With Canada’s Anti-Spam Law (CASL) – Foreign Organizations Doing Business in Canada Need to Pay Attention

    Aug 1, 2014

    Most Canadians have heard about Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL): we’ve been bombarded with “CASL Compliant” emails asking us to…

    Read More
    Publication
  • SCC Protects Internet Users’ Expectation of Privacy In Online Activities in R. v. Spencer

    Jun 16, 2014

    On June 13, 2014 the Supreme Court of Canada decided that Canadians have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their online activities, and…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Counting Down to Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL) – The Last Minute Guide to Preparing For CASL

    Jun 12, 2014

    The countdown to CASL is almost over: there are only 13 business days until the anti-spam provisions of CASL – and most of the penalties for…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Joining the Crowd – NS & NB Consider Crowdfunding

    Jun 11, 2014

    Note: For an update on Crowdfunding, read: New Kid on the Block – Crowdfunding Joins Traditional Equity-Based Funding Options for Start-ups…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Counting Down to Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL) –10 Steps to Prepare for CASL

    May 8, 2014

    On July 1, 2014 – less than two months from now - the anti-spam sections of Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL) take effect. Individuals…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Counting Down to Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL) – Does CASL Make You A “Spammer”?

    Apr 15, 2014

    The countdown to CASL is on: on July 1, 2014, the anti-spam sections of Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (“CASL”) take effect. Individuals…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Cloud Computing: A Privacy FAQ

    Mar 19, 2014

    As organizations turn to cloud computing services, ensuring compliance with legislation and reducing privacy risks is key. In Canada, there is…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Counting Down to Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL): 10 Reasons Why You Should Care About The Upcoming CASL Right Now

    Feb 28, 2014

    On July 1, 2014, the anti-spam sections of Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (aka “CASL”) will take effect. CASL is: Broad. It applies…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Counting Down to Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL) – What You Need to Know Now

    Feb 28, 2014

    On July 1, 2014, the anti-spam sections of Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (aka “CASL”) take effect. CASL will apply to just about every…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Privacy in Computer Contents: Supreme Court of Canada Picks Up Where It Left Off in R. v. Vu

    Nov 8, 2013

    On November 7, 2013, the SCC decided police require specific authorization in a search warrant to search the data in a computer because of the…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Supreme Court of Canada Confirms Employees May Have a Limited Reasonable Expectation of Privacy In Work Computer in R. v. Cole

    Nov 28, 2012

    On October 19, 2012 the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) decided that a teacher criminally charged with possession of child pornography and…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Legal Alert: SCC Finds Limited Reasonable Expectation of Privacy In Work Computer But Evidence Still Admissible

    Oct 22, 2012

    Mr. Cole was a high school teacher with an employer owned and issued laptop computer.  He also used it for incidental personal purposes, which…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Ontario Court of Appeal Finds Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in Work Computer

    May 6, 2011

    In March 2011, the Ontario Court of Appeal found that an employee had a limited expectation of privacy in the contents of a work computer. The…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Legal Update: Cloud Computing and Privacy FAQ

    Apr 7, 2011

    Note: Click here to read an updated version of this Legal Update in Cloud Computing: A Privacy FAQ as seen in as seen in CCCA Magazine, Spring…

    Read More
    Publication

Stay Updated

Subscribe to McInnes Cooper to stay current with our leading insights on legal updates, trends, news, events, and services.

Connect With Us:
  • Follow us on Twitter @mcinnescooper
  • Like us on Facebook @mcinnescooperlaw
  • Join us on LinkedIn @mcinnes-cooper
  • 1.866.439.6246
  • Privacy Policy
  • Copyright © 2023 — McInnes Cooper
Lex Mundi Logo MC Advisory Logo