CIPP-C Exam Dumps - IAPP Certified Information Privacy Professional Questions and Answers

The Access to Information Act includes references to the Privacy Act, as both pieces of legislation are closely related and often work in conjunction to govern the information management practices of federal institutions in Canada. The Access to Information Act provides a framework through which individuals can request access to records under the control of a government institution, whereas the Privacy Act focuses on the personal information held by these institutions and the privacy rights of individuals regarding their personal information. Together, these acts ensure that government handling of information is both transparent and respectful of privacy rights.

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.

In the scenario described, the most significant procedural flaw at the daycare is their failure to respond to the parent's request about the portal’s security measures within a reasonable time frame. Under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), organizations are required to respond to such requests within 30 days. This timeframe is mandated to ensure transparency and to provide individuals with timely access to information about the handling of their personal data. The daycare’s failure to provide an answer within this period violates PIPEDA's provisions regarding the access to personal information and the accountability of organizations in managing this data securely and transparently.

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."

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.

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.

For a provincial law to be considered substantially similar to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), it must consist of consistency with the ten privacy principles, an independent oversight body, and a redress mechanism. This criterion is set by the federal government to ensure that provincial privacy laws provide a comparable level of protection as PIPEDA. If a provincial privacy law meets these standards, it is declared substantially similar, which allows it to supersede PIPEDA within that province for private sector data handling. This framework helps to maintain a uniform standard of privacy protection across Canada while allowing for regional adaptations.

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."

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.

Under Ontario's Personal Health Information Protection Act (PHIPA), health information custodians may rely on implied consent in situations where the information is used for the provision of healthcare unless the patient explicitly opts out. However, private insurance companies do not directly provide healthcare and typically require explicit consent to collect, use, or disclose health information. This is because their primary role involves assessing insurance claims and risk, rather than delivering healthcare services. Long-term care homes, ambulance services, and pharmacies, on the other hand, are directly involved in the provision of care and can typically operate under an implied consent model when sharing information for healthcare purposes.