Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Cybersecurity Law & StrategyFeaturesCybersecurityPrivacyRegulationTechnology Media and Telecom

Not Just Your Same Old Privacy Legislation: A Compliance Briefing for Privacy Officers on the New Canadian Consumer Privacy Protection Act

By John Beardwood and Shan Arora
August 01, 2022

In June 2022, Bill C-27, or "An Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act (the Act) and, the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts" (Bill C-27) was introduced by the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, and underwent First Reading, as a replacement to the federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). (This is in fact the second effort by the federal government to enact this replacement to PIPEDA. In 2021, Bill C-11 (An Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act and the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts) — the mooted replacement for PIPEDA — passed Third Reading of the legislative process, but Canada then had a federal election, and as a result Bill C-11 died prior to being enacted.) Prior to the introduction of the Act, there were concerns that it would effectively be a "'Made in Canada' GDPR". However, while the Act has taken the lead from the EU General Data Protection Regulation in introducing financially enormous penalties, as well as the right of data portability and the right to be forgotten, enough of the original PIPEDA remains such that the Act is now effectively a PIPEDA/GDPR hybrid.

This article, which reviews the Act (other than the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act, which — as it is completely new to the Canadian legislative landscape — will require its own future article) first seeks to identify the delta between the Act and PIPEDA in order to allow privacy officers of organizations that are already PIPEDA compliant to identify the net new compliance requirements under the Act and second, to highlight the provisions of the Act which, if breached, could lead to the imposition of significant fines, and use those as a guide as to which "hot button" features of an organization's privacy compliance program will likely be the focus of enforcement, and as such should therefore be revisited by privacy officers.

This premium content is locked for Cybersecurity Law & Strategy subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations Image

This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.

The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs Image

The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.

CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys Image

Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.

A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.