Loading...
Please wait, while we are loading the content...
Similar Documents
Video Surveillance, Evidence and PIPEDA: A Comment on Ferenczy v. MCI Medical Clinic
| Content Provider | Semantic Scholar |
|---|---|
| Author | Uteck, Anne E. |
| Copyright Year | 2004 |
| Abstract | gators. Private investigators have long been retained for The plaintiff’s counsel objected to the use of the this purpose, and law enforcement officers routinely surveillance evidence on the basis that it was personal utilize surveillance devices to assist in the prosecution of information collected in the course of commercial a crime. The admissibility of video surveillance evidence activity without the plaintiff’s consent, in contravention obtained by private and government investigators is of PIPEDA. Dawson J. ruled that even if personal inforobviously not a new issue. 1 What has come to the foremation was collected by video surveillance without the front is the application of the Personal Information Proplaintiff’s consent, there is no provision under PIPEDA tection and Electronic Documents Act2 in the context of that prohibits its admissibility. 7 Rather, PIPEDA provides video surveillance evidence, and its impact on civil litia process for complaints to be made to the federal Prigators. Privacy interests inherent in the collection, use, vacy Commissioner, but the Court indicated that it ‘‘has and disclosure of personal information may be protected no direct impact on the admissibility of evidence in this under PIPEDA, which clearly adds another consideration trial’’. 8 While this was enough to settle the admissibility to the issue of admissibility of surveillance evidence. The question in this case, Dawson J. went on to consider the impact of PIPEDA on video surveillance evidence in the application of PIPEDA in the context of video surveilemployment context has been addressed by the federal lance, making three notable findings. First, he found that Privacy Commissioner, who has assessed the legitimacy the making of the videotape was not a commercial of surveillance on a ‘‘reasonableness’’ standard. 3 The activity because the private investigator was an agent of Ontario Superior Court, in Ferenczy v. MCI Medical the doctor who was collecting information to defend Clinics, 4 has now interpreted PIPEDA in the litigation himself against the lawsuit. This was, in Dawson J.’s view, context in which a private investigator was used to a ‘‘personal purpose’’, and therefore, outside the applicagather information by video surveillance. While much of tion of PIPEDA. Second, even if PIPEDA did apply, by Dawson J.’s decision is obiter, his analysis with respect to commencing the action, the plaintiff had given implied video surveillance and PIPEDA may be an indication of consent to the collection, use, and disclosure of personal how courts will deal with investigative evidence colinformation insofar as it related to the lawsuit. And lected in the litigation process. The end result in Ferfinally, even if there was no implied consent on the part enczy is likely correct, but Dawson J.’s PIPEDA analysis of the plaintiff, the exception provisions under PIPEDA appears to be a fairly transparent effort to avoid transapplied, which permitted the defendant’s collection, use, forming litigation ‘‘into something very different than it and disclosure of personal information without consent. is today’’. 5 While the insurance industry may have |
| File Format | PDF HTM / HTML |
| Volume Number | 3 |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | https://digitalcommons.schulichlaw.dal.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1050&context=cjlt |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | https://ojs.library.dal.ca/CJLT/article/download/6092/5411 |
| Language | English |
| Access Restriction | Open |
| Content Type | Text |
| Resource Type | Article |
