August 20, 2018
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.
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:
“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.
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.
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:
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:
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:
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.
Sep 25, 2023
There’s a new scam on the web: Electronic Fund Transfer (EFT) scams. Most are familiar with established scams like phishing and ransomware and…
Aug 10, 2023
Canada’s first Tech Talent Strategy aims to aggressively attract tech talent to “fuel innovation and drive emerging technologies forward”.…
Jun 9, 2023
You arrive at the legendary Madison Square Garden to catch the Mariah Carey concert. It’s the big event of the trip – the reason you came to…
Apr 27, 2023
The benefits to employees, and often to employers, of remote work has made it a staple of today’s workplace. But the move to remote work…
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…
Jan 26, 2023
In November 2022, the Ontario Court of Appeal definitively decided an organization whose information systems are breached by a malicious third…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
Jan 26, 2021
We udpated this publication on March 4, 2022. Privacy is critical to every business in every sector, including startups and growing…
Dec 2, 2020
Using social media influencers and micro-influencers is an increasingly effective marketing strategy. Social media use is pervasive; 94% of…
Nov 19, 2020
We updated this publication on June 30, 2022. NOTE: On June 16, 2022, the Government of Canada introduced Bill C-27: Digital Charter…
Nov 17, 2020
We updated this publication on July 11, 2023. Spurred by the COVID-19 Pandemic and bricks-and-mortar closures, businesses – from SMEs to…
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…
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…
Jun 12, 2020
The financial technology (Fintech) industry uses technology to support and enhance financial and banking services.
Mar 28, 2019
Organizations subject to Canada’s Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) – those that collect, use or…
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…
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…
Aug 3, 2018
As of November 1, 2018, organizations in Canada subject to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) will face…
Jul 18, 2018
Most businesses – from startups to SMEs to multi-nationals, and from private family-owned businesses to public corporations – will use…
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…
Jun 11, 2018
On June 6, 2018, the Supreme Court of Canada considered the test for jurisdiction over an allegedly defamatory Internet article – the…
Apr 2, 2018
Equity compensation plans are a valuable and versatile tool for many corporations, from early-stage startups to established blue-chips.…
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…
Nov 16, 2017
Corporations are the leading business vehicle in modern commerce. For startups, properly structuring and incorporating is critical to avoid…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
Mar 30, 2017
Social media platforms, like Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube, Facebook and GooglePlus, arguably have more followers and are more closely…
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…
Feb 24, 2017
This publication has been updated as at January 12, 2023. Many organization (66%) store the personal information of customers. employees,…
Jan 25, 2017
Doing business with the public sector creates an often overlooked – but very real – risk that the confidential information a business…
Jan 13, 2017
On January 11, 2017, Emera Inc. offered an electrifying opportunity for renewable energy developers to potentially access the New England…
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…
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…
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…
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…
Oct 21, 2016
All shareholders – whether in a startup, a small or large business or a family-owned business – can benefit from a shareholders’…
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…
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…
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…
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…
Jan 27, 2016
On January 21, 2016, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dramatically expanded the scope of legal privacy protection – and the liability…
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…
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…
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…
Jul 29, 2015
On July 27, 2015, the Federal Court of Canada decided a lawsuit by medical marijuana program participants against the Federal Government…
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…
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…
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)…
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 –…
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…
Dec 1, 2014
The construction industry - project owners, contractors, subcontractors and trades - might be relaxing, ignoring the hype around Canada’s…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
Mar 19, 2014
As organizations turn to cloud computing services, ensuring compliance with legislation and reducing privacy risks is key. In Canada, there is…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
Subscribe to McInnes Cooper to stay current with our leading insights on legal updates, trends, news, events, and services.