Damages (Credit Reporting)
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
Nammo v. TransUnion of Canada Inc., 2010 FC 1284 (CanLII)
[34] PIPEDA recognizes the reality that organizations collect, use, and disclose personal information. The acceptable purposes for collection, use and disclosure are those described in s. 3 of PIPEDA, namely those that “a reasonable person would consider appropriate in the circumstances.” These are not necessarily the standards set by or for an industry. In this respect, I agree with the following statement of the PCC in its Report:
- TransUnion has taken the position that it acted at all times in accordance with the Alberta Fair Trading Act and section 3.3(2) of the Credit and Personal Reports Regulation of the Act. It takes the position that [PIPEDA] has no application in these circumstances. I disagree. [PIPEDA] sets out independent obligations that must be respected by all organizations covered by the Act. The fact that TransUnion may have respected its obligations under the Fair Trading Act does not mean that it can ignore the obligations under [PIPEDA].
Lastly, I note that nowhere in the Accuracy Principle or in Schedule I is there any reference to industry standards. If all industries had standards that equalled the scheme in PIPEDA, then the Act would have been unnecessary. To now tie the two together would be to neuter the Act and its impact.
