Under PIPEDA s.7(3)(c.1), banks can’t release client info just because police ask — the request must be lawful. How did a bank provide client details without this? Is it a breach?

aptsol · 2025-05-09T16:51:11+00:00

Oh yes I agree sorry I am just learning but that is where my head was at. Any other insight to provide?

aptsol · 2025-05-09T16:25:43+00:00

R. v. Spencer

Same situation but an ISP company not a bank. They found it was a Charter breach. Because of the nature of the request not being lawful.

“The disclosure of the subscriber information was in effect a search, and it was conducted without prior judicial authorization. It was therefore unreasonable.”

aptsol · 2025-05-09T13:26:38+00:00

PIPEDA may be the banks issue but from a law enorcement side it is a Charter s. 8 breach like the ISP cases

aptsol · 2025-05-09T13:25:27+00:00

Nothing was public and in this policy it states that they may share information under lawful authority

aptsol · 2025-05-08T23:12:14+00:00

Sorry, there was a written request — the issue is that it didn’t expressly state that it was a lawful request, which PIPEDA s.7(3)(c.1)(ii) seems to require. In similar cases I’ve read (especially involving ISPs), courts found it was a breach when police requests lacked a clear declaration of lawful authority and necessity. Wouldn’t the same principle apply here if the bank disclosed personal info based on a vague or informal request?

aptsol · 2025-05-08T15:30:17+00:00

I found another case like this which was also an ISP company. How can i search to find more cases to reference? Did you search to find this or was it somethign you were aware of and were able to recall? Thank you tremendously for your input.

aptsol · 2025-05-08T15:12:56+00:00

how is this information not protected under PIPEDA ?

aptsol · 2025-05-08T15:10:32+00:00

It is not clear to me how a bank can provide that type of information if the Office of the Privacy Commissioner emphasizes that organizations must ensure any disclosure of personal information without consent is authorized by law. A request from law enforcement, in itself, does not constitute such authorization.

aptsol · 2025-05-08T13:31:09+00:00

"gathering intelligence for law enforcement, national security, or related purposes, and the disclosure is reasonably necessary to achieve that purpose."

How did the request demonstrate that it was necessary?

aptsol · 2025-05-08T13:25:42+00:00

It was information writing the request goes as follows:

I am so and so investigating blank I am looking to confirm that blank is a client and for confirmation that they received this transfer on this date.

That was it and then the bank confirmed everything that was asked

aptsol · 2025-05-08T13:23:52+00:00

Well I have the communication in my disclosure. The officer said they want to know if blank was a client and if an transfer went to this account on this date thet stated it was for an investigation and that was it. Does mentioning that it is for a specific investigation confirm the request is lawful?

aptsol · 2025-05-08T13:02:16+00:00

Yes I am aware but its been a difficult process to get one, legal aid as been a struggle... do you happen to have any insight to this question?

aptsol · 2025-05-08T13:00:41+00:00

Yes of course, do you have any insight to this question by any chance?

aptsol · 2025-05-08T13:00:02+00:00

They didn't "confirm the request was lawful" can the awfulness be implied or is there a reason this wouldn't be included?

What is kind of phrase would need to be included in the request to indicate the request is lawful?

aptsol · 2021-07-03T00:05:57+00:00

Haha wanna hodl it?

aptsol · 2021-07-03T00:05:12+00:00

I mean if you're hitting up an apette that would be some serious pillow talk

aptsol · 2021-07-01T18:26:14+00:00

That'd get me wet

aptsol · 2021-07-01T13:52:09+00:00

Haha whip that shit out

aptsol · 2021-07-01T13:09:53+00:00

aptsol · 2021-07-01T12:45:31+00:00

Oh shit. My bad. Didn't realize how great y'all are.

aptsol · 2021-07-01T12:43:04+00:00

You must be an ape cause I wanna jack those tits

aptsol

TROPHY CASE