About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

52 Advoc. Q. 427 (2021-2022)
It Shouldn't Be Small Potatoes: The Future of Civil Damage Awards under Canada's Personal Information Protection Legislation

handle is hein.journals/aqrty52 and id is 439 raw text is: IT SHOULDN'T BE SMALL POTATOES: THE FUTURE OF CIVIL DAMAGE AWARDS UNDER CANADA'S PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION LEGISLATION Shannon O'Byrne and Avner Levin The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Document Act (PIPEDA) is well known as federal legislation governing the protection of personal information in the private sector. This article, published over two parts, focusses on a lesser explored but particularly concerning aspect of PIPEDA, namely the low damage awards (averaging between $3,000 to $5,000) granted by courts to applicants who establish a breach of the Act, and the low number of actual applications (24 applications in over 20 years). Chronically low monetary awards threaten PIPEDA's legislative objective of recognizing the individual's right of privacy in their personal information. As the low number of applications reflect, when it makes no economic sense to do so, otherwise deserving complainants will be discouraged from seeking damages or simply be driven to pursue solutions such as class actions. PIPEDA's damage provision thereby stands to wither away from disuse. This article offers a three-fold solution to insufficient quantum and is inspired more generally by the functional approach to monetary damages presented by Justice Cromwell in an Isaac Pitblado lecture. First, damage quanta under PIPEDA must more rigorously reflect the status of personal information protection legislation, including its constitutional overlay and link to what have been termed dignitary torts such as the common law privacy torts and defamation. Second, courts should measure quantum based on insights from torts closely related to breach of privacy under PIPEDA which reflect a higher quantum. Third, courts must firmly reject the Federal Court's 2010 decision in Randall v. Nubody's Fitness Centres, which held that damages under PIPEDA are only recoverable in the most egregious situations. Egregiousness is not an ingredient required by the Act and wrongly reduces its scope. * Prof. Shannon O'Byrne, Faculty of Law, Univ of Alberta; Prof. Avner Levin, Lincoln Alexander School of Law, Ryerson Univ. The authors are grateful to then-JD students Nahanni Fellenz and Daniel Nunez for their outstanding research assistance. The authors also express appreciation to the Canadian Foundation for Legal Research and the Faculty of Law, Univ. of Alberta for research funding. We would like to deeply thank Prof. Jeffrey Berryman (Faculty of Law, Univ. of Windsor), Prof. Teresa Scassa (Faculty of Law, Univ. of Ottawa), Prof. Barbara von Tigerstrom (College of Law, Univ. of Saskatchewan), and Prof. Christopher Hunt (Faculty of Law, Thompson Rivers Univ.) for their thoughtful and detailed comments on an earlier draft of this article. Errors and omissions remain our own. 427

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most