CIPP-C Exam Dumps - Certified Information Privacy Professional/ Canada (CIPP/C)

Under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), express consent is not required when the personal information is publicly available as defined by the regulation. According to the regulations specifying publicly available information under PIPEDA, certain types of information, like that published in directories or records where the individual has provided the information for public dissemination, are excluded from the consent requirement. This provision is aimed at balancing the need for privacy protection with the practicalities of information that has been intentionally made public by the individual or by legal requirement. The other options listed (A, C, D) generally require express consent as they involve uses of personal information that either extend beyond what the individual would reasonably expect, or change the context in which the information was originally collected.

The role of Canadian courts in reviewing decisions made by provincial oversight authorities generally involves examining whether there have been specific types of errors in the decision-making process, such as a misinterpretation of a term in the legislation or application of the law. This judicial review focuses on the legality and reasonableness of the decisions, ensuring that oversight authorities correctly interpret and apply the legislative framework governing privacy and data protection. This review does not extend to re-evaluating all investigative notes or comparing decisions across different provincial authorities, as such tasks are beyond the scope of a typical judicial review process. Therefore, Option C correctly describes the court's role.

Under the Privacy Act, which governs the handling of personal information by federal government institutions, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada does not have the authority to order institutions to take remedial action. The Commissioner's powers are limited to investigating complaints, making recommendations, and, where necessary, taking matters to the Federal Court for resolution. While the Commissioner can recommend solutions and proceed to court to seek orders for compliance, direct enforcement powers, such as ordering remedial actions independently, are not granted under the Privacy Act. Thus, the correct answer is B.

Under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), when an organization transfers personal information to a third party for processing, it remains responsible for that information. It is required to use contractual or other means to provide a comparable level of protection while the information is being processed by the third party. The most appropriate answer here is A, establishing a contract outlining the individual outsourcing arrangement. This ensures that the third party adheres to privacy obligations equivalent to those of PIPEDA. This requirement is directly stated in PIPEDA’s accountability principle, which mandates organizations to use contractual or other means to provide a comparable level of protection while information is being processed by a third party.

Under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), when personal information is collected by a Canadian company and shared for purposes other than those for which the customer provided consent originally, additional consent from the customers is required. This is particularly necessary when the information is intended to be used for a new purpose, such as marketing. Therefore, if ABC Corp wishes to send the data sets to a US-based marketing partner for new uses, they must first seek additional consent from their customers, as this involves a new purpose not previously agreed upon by the data subjects. This requirement is fundamental to ensuring compliance with PIPEDA's consent principle, which mandates that consent must be obtained whenever personal information is used for a purpose not previously consented to by the individual.

The federal Privacy Commissioner of Canada is authorized to initiate a court action in Federal Court after completing an investigation under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) if there has been a refusal to comply with a recommendation made by the Commissioner or if there is a need to clarify the application of the Act. Specifically, the Commissioner can seek a Federal Court determination when there is a dispute about whether personal information was properly withheld from release. This function aligns with the Commissioner's mandate to oversee compliance with PIPEDA and address complaints regarding the handling of personal information by organizations. This provision is found under Section 14 of PIPEDA.

Individuals can determine whether their personal information was used by the federal government for data matching by referring to descriptions of the Personal Information Banks (PIBs) available through Info Source. Info Source is a series of publications and an online resource designed to assist individuals in understanding how the government manages personal information. It is managed by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat and provides information about the existence, purpose, and use of personal information banks within government institutions. This resource is the most direct and reliable way for individuals to identify how their personal data is handled and if it has been used for data matching purposes.

British Columbia's Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) specifically differentiates between regular personal information and employee-related or work-product information. BC's PIPA applies to all private sector organizations within the province and includes provisions that treat employee personal information somewhat differently than other types of personal information. This act allows for the collection, use, and disclosure of employee personal information without consent when it is reasonable for the purposes of establishing, managing, or terminating an employment relationship. This distinction is significant as it acknowledges the unique nature of employee information in the workplace context, differentiating it from other personal information that typically requires consent for similar activities under more general privacy laws.