Industry committee  Again, I would just go back to the “Authorized representatives” piece, where the rights and recourses of the act are afforded “on behalf of a minor by a parent, guardian or tutor, unless the minor wishes....” In your case, if those 17-year-olds had sought out their own autonomous

Industry committee  The only time that might arise is when the commercial entity holding this information receives a request or, potentially, has instructions given on the treatment of the personal information, and they themselves, potentially, get conflicting instructions. Let's imagine that some

Industry committee  I would point to two things that I think are important. One is that under this definition of “minor”, minors' information under the act, as we've now identified through the amendments, will be defined as “sensitive” information, which means that it requires a duty of care and a g

Industry committee  Thank you for that question. As a Manitoban who had the unlucky fate of turning 18 and then immediately moving to the province of Ontario for university, where there was a different understanding of what competency was as it related to the consumption of libations, I feel this

Industry committee  Spencer is a three-part test where any satisfaction of one of the tests can constitute lawful authority for the disclosure of the information. One, is it an emergency? Is it exigent circumstances? Is this information absolutely dire so that it needs to be accessed in this moment?

Industry committee  It reads: Administering law—request of government institution An organization may disclose an individual's personal information without their knowledge or consent to a government institution or part of a government institution that has made a request for the information, ide

Industry committee  What proposed section 44 does in the government amendment is to say that for law enforcement in these particular zones, you can't rely on the CPPA itself for a definition of lawful authority. When we're suggesting that you can rely on a reasonable law to be able to have lawful ac

Industry committee  It's called “Communication with next of kin or authorized representative”.

Industry committee  I think the case law is now what guides organizations in how they use personal information. However, adding this kind of definition to the act would, in a way, further confirm the test set forth in Spencer.

Industry committee  As Ms. Angus said, the addition of a new definition that includes, in a single sentence, the three criteria of the test established in Spencer, without stating that they are three separate parts but only one has to be satisfied, creates a new, more restrictive test for organizati

Industry committee  I'll turn to Ms. Angus.

Industry committee  We need to make it clearer that the Spencer test has exigent circumstances or reasonable law or information that would not attract a reasonable expectation of privacy. If it actually ensured that it recognized that those were three mechanisms that law enforcement had to access in

Industry committee  I think it provides greater clarity as to the uses of personal information by law enforcement. I think it's important, though, that, as Ms. Angus noted, the Spencer test is not a cumulative one. Law enforcement does not need to meet all three aspects of the test. Law enforcement

Industry committee  In the IP case, they could not rely on any of the three, as I understand it, which is why it was seen to be personal information, because it was not understood to be foreseeable that.... It was that an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to their IP a

Industry committee  I want to thank the member for that question. I think our abiding consideration would be that we note and acknowledge the import of R. v. Spencer as a fundamental precept that needs to be understood as it relates to the ongoing interpretation and implementation of the CPPA, in m