Volume V

Issue : 2: January 25, 2007

• HP Settles Lawsuits by Lexmark for Breach of Non Compete
• Defamation and Breach of Fiduciary Duty
• Airline Improperly Declines Access Request In Contemplation of Litigation
• B.C. Privacy Decision Considers Employee Personal Information
• Default Judgment Issued Against Daughter of Famous Music Downloading Defendant
• Google Heads to the Mall but Not to Shop
• Ontario Company Fires Employees for Internet Posting
• U.S. Court Issues Decision on Use of a Competitors Trade marks in Online Advertising

Home > Volume V > Issue 2: January 25, 2007 > Airline Improperly Declines Access Request In Contemplation of Litigation

Airline Improperly Declines Access Request In Contemplation of Litigation

A recent finding from the federal Office of Privacy Commissioner (the “OPC”) confirmed the view that access requests under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (“PIPEDA”) must be treated independently from civil procedure discovery rules.

The complainant in the finding had been banned from traveling on an airline as he posed a threat to the safe operation of the aircraft. Following the ban, the complainant requested information from the airline regarding its reasons for the ban and initiated legal action seeking to have the ban lifted. The airline did not respond to the access request for more than a year, arguing that when litigation commences, there are well-defined rules and procedures that govern the discovery of documents in civil suits and that the complainant was attempting to circumvent these rules through the access request. In finding that the airline was in violation of PIPEDA by not responding within the prescribed 30 day time period, the OPC confirmed its position in a previous finding. In this earlier finding, Assistant Commissioner Black noted that the scope of discovery under the rules of civil procedure is different from the scope of access to personal information under PIPEDA and, as such, documents received through discovery cannot be considered sufficient to meet the requirements of PIPEDA.

At first the airline refused to adopt the OPC’s recommendations. However, once the airline was informed that the OPC would be pursing the matter in federal court, the airline agreed to their implementation.

For a copy of the decision, visit:

http://www.privcom.gc.ca/cf-dc/2006/352_20060908_e.asp