IAPP CIPP-C Certified Information Privacy Professional/ Canada (CIPP/C) Exam Practice Test

The Privacy Commissioner of Canada reports to the Parliament of Canada, specifically to both the House of Commons and the Senate. This structure supports the Commissioner's role as an officer of Parliament, emphasizing the independence necessary for overseeing the government's adherence to privacy laws and handling Canadians' personal information. The reporting relationship ensures accountability and enables the Commissioner to report on privacy issues directly to the legislative body that represents the interests of the public.

The collection and use of the individual’s name and email address by a British Columbia-based wellness app that has various non-healthcare related uses would fall under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). PIPEDA applies to private sector organizations across Canada that handle personal information in the course of commercial activities, regardless of the province where the data is stored or the organization is based, as long as the activity is not exclusively within a province that has substantially similar provincial legislation to PIPEDA. Since the app is used for purposes beyond health care and operates inter-provincially, PIPEDA is the applicable legislation.

Under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), organizations are required to maintain a record of every breach of security safeguards involving personal information that they have determined poses a real risk of significant harm. These records must be maintained for at least 24 months after the date on which the determination was made. This requirement facilitates audits by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada and helps ensure accountability and compliance with the breach notification and record-keeping requirements set forth by PIPEDA. Therefore, the correct answer is C, "24 months."

The Privacy Act governs how federal government institutions handle personal information. The Privacy Commissioner of Canada has highlighted limitations within the Act regarding outsourcing, specifically:

• Lack of Explicit Accountability: While the Privacy Act implies the government institution remains responsible for the personal information, the Commissioner argues that the law needs a clearer, more explicit statement to ensure full accountability when it's outsourced.
• Outsourcing & Privacy Risks: Outsourcing government functions to third parties can add complexity and risk to the protection of personal information.
• References:

Why Other Options Are Less Relevant

• A. Preventing subcontracting: While controlling further subcontracting might be important, it's not the primary concern identified by the Commissioner.
• B. Commissioner's order power: While the Commissioner advocates for greater powers, this is not the specific gap in the Privacy Act related to outsourcing.
• C. Privacy Impact Assessments (PIAs): PIAs are crucial, but the Commissioner's argument highlights that even with PIAs, the Act lacks clear accountability language when the information leaves the government institution.

Key Points

• The Privacy Commissioner plays an advocacy role, identifying areas where privacy legislation could be strengthened.
• Accountability is crucial in all privacy contexts, especially when third parties handle sensitive data.

Translating the hotel's registration page into German based on the visitor's IP address is most likely to result in a finding that the boutique hotel in Montreal is subject to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). This action could be interpreted as targeting European Union residents specifically, thereby bringing the hotel’s activities within the scope of the GDPR. Actions like language customization based on geographic location explicitly target individuals within the EU, demonstrating intent to offer services directly to these consumers, a key criterion for GDPR applicability.

Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Acts (FIPPA), personal information typically includes details that are about an identifiable individual. This can include information about an individual's creditworthiness, employment history, and character references, as these relate directly to the person. However, information about an individual's home business does not generally qualify as personal information under FIPPA because it pertains more to their commercial activities rather than their personal life or identity. Therefore, the correct answer is A, "Information about an individual’s home business."

Under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), certain types of data are considered particularly sensitive due to the potential for harm if misused or disclosed. This includes information about an individual's physical disability, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and religion. Religion, as a category of sensitive information, can reveal deeply personal beliefs and affiliations that, if mishandled, could lead to discrimination or other adverse effects. PIPEDA recognizes that sensitive information requires a higher level of protection and generally mandates that explicit consent is obtained before such information is collected, used, or disclosed.

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.

From the Blood Tribe case, it can be concluded that the Privacy Commissioner of Canada can officially request proof that the information sought in an investigation is subject to solicitor-client privilege. The Supreme Court of Canada held in this case that while the Commissioner has significant investigative powers, these do not automatically override the solicitor-client privilege. The decision clarifies that any organization claiming such a privilege must substantiate its claim, and the Commissioner has the authority to challenge and request proof of this claim, ensuring the privilege is not used improperly to withhold information.

Under the Privacy Act, a request for access to one’s personal information can be denied in specific circumstances, such as when the information was collected by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) while performing policing services for a province or municipality. This scenario typically involves information collected for law enforcement, investigation, or security purposes, where releasing it might compromise ongoing operations or the methods used in such operations. The Privacy Act includes provisions to deny access when disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the enforcement of laws, the conduct of investigations, or similar matters related to law enforcement and security.

In the context of Canadian privacy law and specifically according to the principles derived from PIPEDA and relevant case law such as the Eastman case, video cameras in the workplace begin collecting personal information at the moment a recording occurs. This is because the recording captures identifiable images of individuals, thereby constituting the collection of personal information under privacy legislation. The act of recording, which captures and stores visual data, meets the definition of personal information collection since it involves storing images from which individuals can be identified. Therefore, the correct answer is A, "At the moment a recording occurs."

The Canadian Standards Association (CSA) was the primary influence in the development of Canadian privacy principles with the publication of the CSA Model Code for the Protection of Personal Information. This set of eight privacy principles later became part of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), serving as a foundation for how personal information should be handled by private sector organizations in Canada. The CSA's Model Code includes principles such as accountability, identifying purposes, consent, limiting collection, limiting use, disclosure and retention, accuracy, safeguards, openness, individual access, and challenging compliance. Therefore, the correct answer is D, "The Canadian Standards Association (CSA)."

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.

British Columbia's health information privacy laws are encapsulated in the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) and the E-Health (Personal Health Information Access and Protection of Privacy) Act for electronic health records. Unlike health information privacy acts in some other provinces which cover a wide range of health sector participants, BC’s laws are distinct in not directly including certain types of health facilities like independent laboratories and nursing homes under the same stringent requirements as other health care providers. These facilities may be covered under different aspects of legislation or have specific regulations but are not grouped under the typical health information custodian category in the same way as they are in provinces that use terms like "custodian" extensively. This specificity aligns with the statement in option C.

According to the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Model Code, which has been adopted into PIPEDA, personal information should be retained only as long as necessary to fulfill the purposes for which it was collected. This principle ensures that personal information is not kept indefinitely without a valid reason, supporting data minimization and limiting potential privacy risks associated with unnecessary data retention. This principle is reflected in the CSA Model Code's retention guideline, which emphasizes the need to retain personal information only for the duration required to achieve its intended purpose. Therefore, the correct statement is Option D.

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada’s (OPC) four-point test for determining the necessity and reasonableness of collecting, using, or disclosing personal information does not include questioning the validity and accuracy of the information as a direct component. The four-point test includes examining whether the measure is necessary to meet a specific need; whether it is likely to be effective in meeting that need; whether the loss of privacy is proportional to the benefit gained; and whether there are less privacy-invasive ways to achieve the same end. Therefore, option C, "Are the validity and accuracy of individual test results guaranteed to be accurate?" is not part of this test, as it concerns the technical and scientific reliability of the tests rather than the privacy implications of accessing or sharing the results.

In 2007, four employees of TELUS Communications Corporation filed a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner of Canada in connection with the collection of their urine samples. This case involved concerns about privacy and the appropriateness of collecting biological samples for drug testing purposes. The issue raised questions about the balance between workplace safety and privacy rights, highlighting the sensitivity and potential intrusiveness of collecting such personal information. The complaint underscored the need for clear policies and justifications when sensitive personal data, particularly biometric data, is collected by employers.

Under PIPEDA, any breach of security safeguards involving personal information that poses a real risk of significant harm (RROSH) requires reporting to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC). In the scenarios given, sending a sales report with aggregated information (option A) or a file with client data to wrong processors who cannot identify the clients (option B), or blocking an attempted hack (option C), may not necessarily pose a RROSH. However, a nursing home releasing an email with everyone's email address in the "to" section unredacted during a freedom of information request (option D) potentially exposes individuals to a risk of spam, phishing, and other malicious activities, thereby posing a real risk of significant harm. This constitutes a breach requiring reporting to the OPC.

In Ontario, as well as in most jurisdictions in Canada, once a patient discloses information to a healthcare provider, the information becomes part of their health record and cannot typically be altered or deleted based on the patient's subsequent regret or preference for privacy. Under privacy laws that apply to health information in Ontario, such as the Personal Health Information Protection Act (PHIPA), a patient does not have the right to have valid medical diagnoses removed or altered in their health record. However, they can request that the disclosure of their health information be restricted to certain persons or for certain purposes. Therefore, the patient would be most successful at pursuing Option B, requesting that the information be restricted from disclosure to other healthcare providers. This is supported by Section 20 of PHIPA, which allows individuals to withhold or withdraw consent for certain uses of their information, with necessary exceptions for emergency situations or other legally mandated disclosures.

The Government of Canada’s Directive on Privacy Impact Assessments is designed to ensure that privacy implications are appropriately considered in the delivery of Government of Canada programs and services. This directive typically applies to federal departments and agencies. However, it does not apply to The Cabinet, which is essentially part of the executive branch of government involved in decision-making at the highest levels. Cabinet discussions and materials are often confidential and governed by different sets of rules regarding privacy and security. Thus, the correct answer is D, The Cabinet.

When a financial institution such as a bank or an investment advisor collects a social insurance number (SIN) for tax reporting purposes, especially in contexts like opening a Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP), it is mandatory because the SIN is required by law for such purposes. However, the use of the SIN for other purposes, such as identity verification, is not mandatory and should only be done with the client's consent. Thus, the correct answer is A, "Optional for identity verification purposes," indicating that while the SIN is necessary for tax purposes, its use for verifying identity is at the client's discretion.

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.