Collection Agencies

R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 74: GENERAL

22. (1) If a debtor sends a collection agency or collector, by verifiable means, including personal service, certified mail, courier, facsimile or e-mail, a notice stating that the debtor disputes the debt and suggests that the matter be taken to court, the collection agency or collector shall not thereafter contact or attempt to contact the debtor, unless the debtor consents to or requests the contact.

(2) If a debtor or his or her lawyer or licensed paralegal sends a collection agency, by verifiable means, including personal service, certified mail, courier, facsimile or e-mail, a notice requesting that the collection agency communicate only with the debtor’s lawyer or licensed paralegal, and setting out the lawyer or licensed paralegal’s address and telephone number, the collection agency or a collector shall not thereafter contact or attempt to contact the debtor other than through the debtor’s lawyer or licensed paralegal unless the debtor consents to or requests the contact.

Consumer Reporting Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.33

9 (3) A consumer reporting agency shall not include in a consumer report,

(a) any credit information based on evidence that is not the best evidence reasonably available;

PIPEDA Report of Findings #2017-007

Outcome

In this case, it is clear that PIPEDA is applicable. The website was disclosing the complainants’ personal information in exchange for a fee from a third party (the judgment creditor), which is considered a commercial activity under PIPEDA. The Act applies to organizations that collect, use or disclose personal information in the course of commercial activities.

As for the claim that the site was a form of journalism and thus exempt from consent under PIPEDA, we did not agree. We found that the primary purpose of the website was not journalistic. Our analysis was guided by a recent Federal Court decision in A.T. v. Globe24h, which noted, among other criteria, that an activity should involve an “element of original production” to be considered journalism. Upon examining the content of the site, we found that there was nothing original about the information on the site; it simply posts content provided by others.

Our office’s findings also took into account the determination of the Ontario Ministry of Government and Consumer Services that the website operated as a “consumer reporting agency” under Ontario’s Consumer Reporting Act. As such, its use and disclosure of information relating to debts owing by individuals was strictly regulated. Under this legislation, there is a specific prohibition on publishing a debtor’s failure to pay except in specified circumstances. Collection agencies are similarly strictly regulated. In this case, the website was disclosing personal information to the world at large. Accordingly, our office found that, contrary to what is required by subsection 5(3) of PIPEDA, a reasonable person would not consider it appropriate for an organization to publicize broadly this information for financial gain and for the purpose of coercing debtors into paying their debts, especially given the availability of legal mechanisms to enforce judgments.

LaFleur v. Canadian Bond Credits Ltd., 2003 CanLII 64307 (ON SC)

I find that the defendant contravened the Collection Agencies Act and that its persistent unwarranted telephone calls constituted harassment of the plaintiffs. It was an invasion of their privacy and constituted a nuisance deserving of compensation.

Having regard to the number of calls, the duration of them, and the detrimental effect they had on the plaintiffs and in particular Lynn Bourke, I believe a fair assessment of general damages for the invasion of privacy and consequent nuisance would be $1,000 for the plaintiff Lynn Bourke and $500 for the plaintiff Marc LaFleur.