Skip to Content

Client Update: Does your business need a spring privacy tune-up? Breach reporting and Europe’s GDPR are about to hatch

Rob Aske

The arrival of spring should bring thoughts of renewal… to your privacy practices.

Breach reporting under PIPEDA

Canada’s federal privacy law known by the acronym PIPEDA (Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act) will now add privacy breach reporting as of November 1, 2018.

These breach reporting requirements were passed in 2015, but were not put into force as we waited for certain regulations to be proposed. But these regulations have now been published and with General Data Privacy Regulation coming in Europe in late May (see below), it was expected that Canada’s federal government would put the breach reporting provisions into force soon, and the November 1 implementation has just been announced.

The gist of the breach reporting obligations is as follows:

A business will be required to report to the Privacy Commissioner a breach involving personal information (“PI”) under its control, if it is reasonable to believe that the breach creates a real risk of significant harm to the individual.

Significant harm is defined to include humiliation, damage to reputation or relationships, loss of employment, business or professional opportunities, financial loss, identity theft, negative effects on credit record, and damage to or loss of property.

Factors relevant to the real risk of significant harm include sensitivity of the PI, and the probability that it may be misused.

The report to the Commissioner would need to describe the breach, when it occurred, the PI that is subject, the estimated number of individuals affected, and the steps that the organization is taking in response.

The business would also need to notify individuals whose PI is involved, if that breach creates a real risk of significant harm to the individual.

The notice to the individual would need to describe the breach, when it occurred, the PI affected, the steps the organization is taking, plus information about the business’ complaints process and the individual’s rights under PIPEDA.

The business could be obliged to notify other organizations or government if the business believes that these other bodies may be able to reduce the risk of harm.

Another big change with this new legislation is that businesses shall be obliged to keep and maintain records of EVERY breach of security safeguards involving PI; i.e. whether or not it meets any particular harm test. In addition, businesses must, on request, provide the Commissioner with access to copies of these records.

In other words (cynically speaking), businesses will be obliged to maintain records which will help the Commissioner and any claimant build a case against the business.

The regulations require records of breach to be maintained for 24 months after the date that the business determined that the breach occurred. In addition, these records, must enable the Commissioner to verify compliance with the business’ reporting obligations to the Commissioner and to individuals, if there has been a breach which creates a real risk of significant harm.

Any breach of these obligations may result in the business being charged with an offence, which could result in a fine not exceeding $100,000.

The obligation to report privacy breaches is not new to many jurisdictions, but will be new to much of Canada, and compels every business to tune up their privacy practices. And if your business deals with European customers, there’s more….

Europe’s General Data Privacy Regulation (“GDPR”) in force on May 25, 2018

This new law applies to both “controllers” and “processors” of PI. Controllers are those front line organizations (visible to the customer) that determine the purposes and means of processing PI, while a processor may process PI on behalf of the controller.

The GDPR can apply to a business which may not be established in the European Union (“EU”), if that business is offering goods and services to EU residents.

The GDPR takes individual consent to a higher level, requiring a freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the individual’s wishes, by which they offer a “clear affirmative action” to confirm their agreement to processing of their PI. Any PI collection must be specific, explicit and for legitimate purposes, and PI cannot be further processed in a manner that is not compatible with those purposes. Most interpret the GDPR’s consent provisions as requiring a positive opt-in, which is separate from other terms and conditions. The language must be plain. The right to withdraw must be as easy as giving consent, and must be available at any time. A child below 16 years must provide the consent of their parent or guardian.

Individuals have the right to obtain from controllers information about the processing of their PI including purposes of processing, categories of PI involved, recipients of PI, the period of retention, the identity of third parties providing any of the PI, and more.

EU residents will now have the so-called “right to be forgotten”, which requires the controller to erase PI without undue delay, provided that the PI is no longer necessary, and certain other conditions are met. Individuals will also have right to data portability, requiring controllers to transmit data to other controllers.

Processors may have potential direct liability, even though they may only be acting for the controller, and may not have any relationship with the individuals whose personal data is involved.

The GDPR also has obligations to notify individuals of data breach, similar terms to those outlined for PIPEDA above.

The GDPR gives individuals the right to an effective judicial remedy if their privacy rights have been infringed, including the right to receive compensation from the controllers and processors. The privacy authorities also have the right to levy fines for breach, which in some cases can go as high as €20 million, or 4% of total worldwide annual revenue for the preceding financial year, whichever is higher.

So if your organization has potential exposure in dealing with PI of Europeans, a close look at the obligations under GDPR is likely warranted.

Archive

Early court decisions on generative AI: What Canadian businesses need to know

BY Matthew N. Craig

Matthew N. Craig and Sam Schonfeld Regardless of which industry you are a part of, you have likely noticed the adoption of generative artificial intelligence (“GenAI”) all around you. Increasingly,…

Read More

Government of Canada introduces Protecting Privacy and Consumer Data Act

Sarah Dever Letson, CIPP/C, Maria Cummings, and Keeley A. Hussey On June 15, 2026, Bill C-36, An Act to enact the Protecting Privacy and Consumer Data Act, to amend the…

Read More

PEI’s new Employment Standards Act is now in force: What employers need to do now

Murray L. Murphy, K.C., CPHR and Jacob E. Zelman In our earlier update issued in March 2025 (At a glance: Key changes coming to Prince Edward Island’s Employment Standards Act), we flagged…

Read More

More health profession migrations: An update on Nova Scotia’s Regulated Health Professions Act

BY Tyana R. Caplan & Jennifer Taylor

By Tyana Caplan & Jennifer Taylor The midpoint of 2026 provides a timely opportunity to review which health professions in Nova Scotia have now migrated to the Regulated Health Professions…

Read More

A reason to reconsider probate planning in New Brunswick

By Christopher Marr, TEP, Partner with assistance from Brady McKinley, student-at-law Significant increase to New Brunswick probate tax and fees Effective as of June 12, 2026, probate fees and taxes have significantly increased…

Read More

Coverage – Policy Interpretation – Causation

BY Tipper McEwan

By Tipper McEwan In Green Rise Foods Inc. v. N.V. Hagelunie, 2026 ONCA 334 (CanLII),the Court of Appeal for Ontario considered a case involving a series of potential causes for…

Read More

Back to the office? Not without notice: BC Court of Appeal confirms work-from-home can be a binding term of employment

BY Sacha Morisset, K.C.

By Sacha D. Morisset, K.C. The British Columbia Court of Appeal has upheld a finding of constructive dismissal against a Vancouver real estate developer that directed a longtime remote employee…

Read More

The In-Canada Workers Initiative: Hope and Disappointment

By Brittany Trafford and Brendan Sheridan On May 4, 2026, Canada’s Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship announced further details on the federal government’s one-time initiative to accelerate permanent residence…

Read More

DeVenne v. DeVenne (Part III): Liability and Remedies

BY Tipper McEwan

By Tipper McEwan In Part One of this three-part series on a recent case involving a power of attorney lawsuit in Nova Scotia, DeVenne v. DeVenne, 2026 NSSC 61 (CanLII),…

Read More

DeVenne v. DeVenne (Part II): Breach of Duty

BY Tipper McEwan

By Tipper McEwan This is Part Two of a series discussing a recent case, DeVenne v. DeVenne, 2026 NSSC 61 (CanLII), involving a power of attorney lawsuit in Nova Scotia….

Read More

Search Archive