Authors
Partner, Disputes, Montréal
Partner, Disputes, Toronto
Partner, Disputes, Calgary
Partner, Disputes, Montréal
Partner, Disputes, Toronto
Partner, Disputes | Insolvency and Restructuring, Montréal
Table of Contents
- Hogue c. Société canadienne des postes, 2025 QCCS 49
- E.G. v. Scotiabank (Bank of Nova Scotia), 2024 QCCS 3979
Privacy Jurisprudence Review
Hogue c. Société canadienne des postes, 2025 QCCS 49
Facts
The plaintiff sought the authorization to institute a class action on behalf of customers of the defendant, Société canadienne des postes (Canada Post), alleging that their personal information had been collected and sold without their consent. The plainitiff alleged that Canada Post had created postal marketing mailing lists that it then sold to private corporations. The plaintiff was seeking an award of compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of the proposed class.
Decision
The Court authorized the class action in part and concluded that the allegations appeared sufficient to conclude that Canada Post collected information that goes beyond what is necessary to accomplish its purpose, that it resold this information to third parties for profit, and that it had not obtained the consent of its customers to do so. Therefore, it authorized the claims based on the violation of the Privacy Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-21, and of the Civil Code of Québec, C.Q.L.R. c. CCQ-1991.
The Court also authorized the claim based on the right to privacy under the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, C.Q.L.R. c. C-12 (the Québec Charter). It rejected Canada Post’s argument that the Québec Charter does not apply to Canada Post on the grounds that it is a federal Crown corporation.
However, the Court did not authorize the misrepresentation claim based on the Consumer Protection Act, C.Q.L.R. c. P-40.1, because the plaintiff did not allege that he was aware of Canada Post’s policy on the protection of personal information nor that he relied on Canada Post’s representations contained therein.
With regards to compensatory damages, the Court notably stated that the use of personal information for commercial purposes without consent or compensation may cause harm. It thus concluded that the plaintiff’s allegations could not be considered frivolous, including that his personal information is valuable and that he is entitled to claim payment of an amount equal to the value of the personal information collected by Canada Post.
As for punitive damages, the Court concluded that Canada Post’s actions could be characterized as intentional within the meaning of section 49 of the Québec Charter.
Key takeaway
This decision reiterates the importance of obtaining consent to collect or use personal information, and highlights the legal risks associated with the unauthorized collection and resale of personal information. It also reflects the increasing recognition of personal information as a valuable asset for corporations.
E.G. v. Scotiabank (Bank of Nova Scotia), 2024 QCCS 3979
Facts
The plaintiff (E.G.), represented by his daughter, sought damages for the alleged violation of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, S.C. 2000, c. 5 (PIPEDA) by the defendant. E.G. alleged that Scotiabank wrongfully disclosed his bank statements to the Public Curator for Québec (the public curator) following a letter in which the public curator requested from Scotiabank disclosure of E.G.’s bank statements to protect his assets. Scotiabank applied to dismiss E.G.’s originating application.
Decision
The Court granted the application to dismiss.
The Court stated that subsection 7(3)(i) of the PIPEDA provides for an exception to the confidentiality of bank statements where the law requires disclosure.
The Court concluded that the law required disclosure of E.G.’s bank statements. Indeed, the public curator’s letter, and the request for disclosure contained therein, was sent as part of inquiry powers under section 27 of the Public Curator Act, C.Q.L.R. c. C-81. Within the context of such inquiry, the public curator exercises its powers with the immunity conferred on commissioners under the Act respecting public inquiry commissions, C.Q.L.R. c. C-37, allowing the public curator to compel disclosure of personal information.
Although this reasoning was enough to grant Scotiabank’s application to dismiss, the Court pointed out the lack of allegations regarding the nature of the prejudice suffered by E.G. as another basis for justifying the preliminary dismissal of the claim. The case law does not allow the award of compensatory damages solely because an unauthorized party had access to personal information.
Key takeaway
This decision reinforces the principle that privacy rights under PIPEDA are not absolute and may be overridden by statutory obligations to disclose personal information. It also highlights the importance of demonstrating actual harm in privacy-related claims.
For organizations, this case serves as a reminder to carefully assess whether a statutory exception applies before disclosing personal information.
