CIPP-C Certified Information Privacy Professional/ Canada (CIPP/C) Question and Answers

Under the Alberta Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA), when a real risk of significant harm (RROSH) from a data breach has been determined, the organization must notify both the individuals affected and the Privacy Commissioner of Alberta. The law requires that notifications include the description of the personal information involved in the breach, the number of individuals affected, and the steps taken to reduce or mitigate harm. However, a description of the steps the organization will take to notify affected individuals is part of the process following the assessment and initial report, not an immediate requirement when notifying the Commissioner of the RROSH itself.

In the scenario described, the most significant procedural flaw at the daycare is their failure to respond to the parent's request about the portal’s security measures within a reasonable time frame. Under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), organizations are required to respond to such requests within 30 days. This timeframe is mandated to ensure transparency and to provide individuals with timely access to information about the handling of their personal data. The daycare’s failure to provide an answer within this period violates PIPEDA's provisions regarding the access to personal information and the accountability of organizations in managing this data securely and transparently.

The movement toward comprehensive privacy and data protection laws can largely be attributed to the need to ensure consistency with global laws. This factor is pivotal as it reflects the globalized nature of the digital economy and the cross-border flow of data. Ensuring that local laws are compatible with global standards helps in maintaining international trade relationships, encourages data exchange, and builds trust in digital transactions and interactions worldwide. It also helps countries keep pace with international best practices and meet the expectations of foreign partners and international regulatory requirements.

According to the typical frameworks of voluntary codes of conduct concerning the responsible development and management of advanced generative AI systems, signatories commit to several actions to ensure ethical practices. These usually include contributing to the development and application of AI standards, sharing information and best practices of AI governance, and supporting public awareness and education on AI. However, adopting low-risk uses of AI as a specific commitment is not typically included in these codes. Such codes generally emphasize responsible development and management practices rather than limiting the adoption to low-risk uses, aiming to address broader ethical and governance issues across various applications of AI.

In Ontario, as well as in most jurisdictions in Canada, once a patient discloses information to a healthcare provider, the information becomes part of their health record and cannot typically be altered or deleted based on the patient's subsequent regret or preference for privacy. Under privacy laws that apply to health information in Ontario, such as the Personal Health Information Protection Act (PHIPA), a patient does not have the right to have valid medical diagnoses removed or altered in their health record. However, they can request that the disclosure of their health information be restricted to certain persons or for certain purposes. Therefore, the patient would be most successful at pursuing Option B, requesting that the information be restricted from disclosure to other healthcare providers. This is supported by Section 20 of PHIPA, which allows individuals to withhold or withdraw consent for certain uses of their information, with necessary exceptions for emergency situations or other legally mandated disclosures.

Before implementing an electronic service (e-service), a federal government department is required to complete a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) in accordance with Treasury Board guidelines. A PIA is a process that helps federal institutions to evaluate how new or substantially modified programs or services could affect individual privacy and to address those effects appropriately. The guidelines provided by the Treasury Board specify how PIAs should be conducted to ensure that all privacy risks are identified and mitigated before the implementation of a new or modified e-service. This requirement is crucial for maintaining the privacy and security of personal information handled by government departments.

The Access to Information Act includes references to the Privacy Act, as both pieces of legislation are closely related and often work in conjunction to govern the information management practices of federal institutions in Canada. The Access to Information Act provides a framework through which individuals can request access to records under the control of a government institution, whereas the Privacy Act focuses on the personal information held by these institutions and the privacy rights of individuals regarding their personal information. Together, these acts ensure that government handling of information is both transparent and respectful of privacy rights.

The federal Privacy Commissioner of Canada is authorized to initiate a court action in Federal Court after completing an investigation under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) if there has been a refusal to comply with a recommendation made by the Commissioner or if there is a need to clarify the application of the Act. Specifically, the Commissioner can seek a Federal Court determination when there is a dispute about whether personal information was properly withheld from release. This function aligns with the Commissioner's mandate to oversee compliance with PIPEDA and address complaints regarding the handling of personal information by organizations. This provision is found under Section 14 of PIPEDA.

Under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), when an organization transfers personal information to a third party for processing, it remains responsible for that information. It is required to use contractual or other means to provide a comparable level of protection while the information is being processed by the third party. The most appropriate answer here is A, establishing a contract outlining the individual outsourcing arrangement. This ensures that the third party adheres to privacy obligations equivalent to those of PIPEDA. This requirement is directly stated in PIPEDA’s accountability principle, which mandates organizations to use contractual or other means to provide a comparable level of protection while information is being processed by a third party.

The Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Privacy Principles, which are part of the CSA Model Code for the Protection of Personal Information and have been incorporated into the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), specify that personal information shall be protected with security safeguards appropriate to the sensitivity of the information. This implies that not all personal information requires the same level of protection, but rather protection proportional to its sensitivity. Therefore, the statement in Option A, "Personal information shall be protected by the same security safeguards regardless of the sensitivity of the information," is not a CSA Privacy Principle and is incorrect.

Under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), organizations are required to maintain a record of every breach of security safeguards involving personal information that they have determined poses a real risk of significant harm. These records must be maintained for at least 24 months after the date on which the determination was made. This requirement facilitates audits by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada and helps ensure accountability and compliance with the breach notification and record-keeping requirements set forth by PIPEDA. Therefore, the correct answer is C, "24 months."

Québec has specific legislative requirements under its Act respecting access to documents held by public bodies and the Protection of personal information that require government bodies to store and access personal information within Canada, unless an exception applies. This provision is meant to protect the privacy of individuals by controlling and limiting the potential exposure of their personal information to jurisdictions outside Canada, which may not have similar privacy safeguards. Thus, Québec is the province that requires its government bodies to store and access personal information exclusively in Canada unless additional consent is obtained or if outside storage is judged necessary, making the correct answer B, "Québec."

Under PIPEDA, any breach of security safeguards involving personal information that poses a real risk of significant harm (RROSH) requires reporting to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC). In the scenarios given, sending a sales report with aggregated information (option A) or a file with client data to wrong processors who cannot identify the clients (option B), or blocking an attempted hack (option C), may not necessarily pose a RROSH. However, a nursing home releasing an email with everyone's email address in the "to" section unredacted during a freedom of information request (option D) potentially exposes individuals to a risk of spam, phishing, and other malicious activities, thereby posing a real risk of significant harm. This constitutes a breach requiring reporting to the OPC.

According to the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Model Code, which has been adopted into PIPEDA, personal information should be retained only as long as necessary to fulfill the purposes for which it was collected. This principle ensures that personal information is not kept indefinitely without a valid reason, supporting data minimization and limiting potential privacy risks associated with unnecessary data retention. This principle is reflected in the CSA Model Code's retention guideline, which emphasizes the need to retain personal information only for the duration required to achieve its intended purpose. Therefore, the correct statement is Option D.

The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) applies to private sector organizations that operate across provincial or national borders in Canada in the course of commercial activities. Therefore, employees of an airline offering flights across Canada would be subject to PIPEDA because their employer operates in a federally regulated sector involving interprovincial transportation. The other examples given—underwriters for a New Brunswick insurance company, clerks at a Montreal credit union, and the IT department of a provincial government office in Saskatchewan—are subject to provincial privacy laws rather than PIPEDA. In the case of the credit union in Quebec and the insurance company in New Brunswick, provincial privacy laws apply to their operations within the province, and provincial public sector privacy laws cover the Saskatchewan Office of Residential Tenancies.

Under Ontario's Personal Health Information Protection Act (PHIPA), health information custodians may rely on implied consent in situations where the information is used for the provision of healthcare unless the patient explicitly opts out. However, private insurance companies do not directly provide healthcare and typically require explicit consent to collect, use, or disclose health information. This is because their primary role involves assessing insurance claims and risk, rather than delivering healthcare services. Long-term care homes, ambulance services, and pharmacies, on the other hand, are directly involved in the provision of care and can typically operate under an implied consent model when sharing information for healthcare purposes.

When a financial institution such as a bank or an investment advisor collects a social insurance number (SIN) for tax reporting purposes, especially in contexts like opening a Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP), it is mandatory because the SIN is required by law for such purposes. However, the use of the SIN for other purposes, such as identity verification, is not mandatory and should only be done with the client's consent. Thus, the correct answer is A, "Optional for identity verification purposes," indicating that while the SIN is necessary for tax purposes, its use for verifying identity is at the client's discretion.

From the Blood Tribe case, it can be concluded that the Privacy Commissioner of Canada can officially request proof that the information sought in an investigation is subject to solicitor-client privilege. The Supreme Court of Canada held in this case that while the Commissioner has significant investigative powers, these do not automatically override the solicitor-client privilege. The decision clarifies that any organization claiming such a privilege must substantiate its claim, and the Commissioner has the authority to challenge and request proof of this claim, ensuring the privilege is not used improperly to withhold information.

The role of Canadian courts in reviewing decisions made by provincial oversight authorities generally involves examining whether there have been specific types of errors in the decision-making process, such as a misinterpretation of a term in the legislation or application of the law. This judicial review focuses on the legality and reasonableness of the decisions, ensuring that oversight authorities correctly interpret and apply the legislative framework governing privacy and data protection. This review does not extend to re-evaluating all investigative notes or comparing decisions across different provincial authorities, as such tasks are beyond the scope of a typical judicial review process. Therefore, Option C correctly describes the court's role.