First Reference company logo

First Reference Talks

News and Discussions on Payroll, HR & Employment Law

decorative image

PIPEDA

Digital Privacy Act is now law

The Digital Privacy Act (Bill S-4) passed into law, introducing (among other things) significant fines and mandatory breach notification (not yet in force) into the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA).

 

, , , , , , , , , ,

Personal information and medical leaves – careful what you disclose

I recently read an interesting case made by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (decision 2014 – 014) stating that under subsection 5(3) of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) that the employer’s purposes for disclosing the employee’s personal information regarding his medical leave were not appropriate in the circumstances and were not necessary for the organization to meet its employee schedule management needs in the context of its work environment.

 

, , , , , , , ,

Three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk

Three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk deal with the Expedia annual vacation survey; the state of privacy in Canada; and, Alberta’s new progressive personal income tax system.

 

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk

Three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk deal with major changes to PIPEDA; family status test in Alberta; and termination due to a mental disability.

 

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Theft is no reason to violate an employee’s rights

Imagine you were working as a clerk in a grocery store, and your manager suspected you of stealing some product off the shelf. She has no concrete evidence, only hearsay from a co-worker. An investigation turns up nothing, and you continue working as though nothing had happened. But the manager notified your employer, and your employer added your name to a database of suspected employee thieves, which all sorts of retailers of all sizes subscribe to in order to avoid hiring persons of questionable character.

 

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Video surveillance and the workplace – Part 2

A mixture of incognizance and apathy often prevails in the private sector when it comes to understanding and applying legal privacy considerations in the installation and use of video cameras…

 

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Year-end round-up

Like most of you, I’m sure, I was extra busy before Christmas last year, and to top it all off, I got sick and had to leave some things unfinished. So I couldn’t bring you this brief round-up of things that happened in the last three months of 2011, much of which has to do with technology and how employers will use it to interact with employees and customers. But it’s a new year and I’ve recovered from my illness and my holidays, so without further ado…

 

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Common law privacy rights: a shifting stance

The recent case of R. v. Cole 2011 ONCA 218, a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal suggests that employees may have some expectations of privacy with regard to work based emails under the Charter.

 

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

First damage award in PIPEDA case

Here’s something readers might want to know about: the Federal Court has awarded damages in a case based on the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. Why is that special? Well, it’s the first damages award in the 10-year history of the Act.

 

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Anti-spam bill receives royal assent

The Anti-spam bill places restrictions on the type of unsolicited communications organizations can send. You will only be allowed to send commercial electronic messages if the recipient has given express or implied consent. A commercial electronic message is one whose purpose is “to encourage participation in a commercial activity”…

 

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Customer privacy policies and employee handling of customer personal information

A weekend Toronto Star article reported that employees at the Canada Revenue Agency are improperly reviewing the private financial affairs of taxpayers. Some are using agency computers to give favoured treatment to colleagues, friends, family—and themselves…

 

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Next posts