CIPP-C Certified Information Privacy Professional/ Canada (CIPP/C) Questions and Answers

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.

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."

Work-product information is generally thought of as information that is prepared or collected as part of an individual’s responsibilities or activities in connection to their job. This includes documents, notes, reports, and other materials created as part of an employee's duties or during their employment. The focus here is on the content being directly related to the job functions and responsibilities rather than personal attributes or information unrelated to work tasks. This type of information is distinct from personal information that may be collected for HR purposes and is typically treated differently under privacy laws.

Under the Privacy Act, which governs the handling of personal information by federal government institutions in Canada, there is a stipulation that the collection of personal information must relate directly to an operating program or activity of the government institution. This requirement ensures that any personal data collected is directly relevant and necessary for a legitimate governmental function or service, thus preventing the unnecessary collection of personal information. This principle is meant to limit government institutions to collecting only that information which is strictly necessary for carrying out their legally authorized functions, aligning with privacy protection objectives. Option C accurately represents this requirement.

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 main reason a country might adopt an "ombudsman" model of privacy oversight is to reduce the perception that compliance is a confrontational process. The ombudsman model focuses on mediation and resolution rather than enforcement, aiming to resolve issues through dialogue and negotiation rather than punitive measures. This approach helps to foster a cooperative relationship between the regulator and the entities they oversee, which can lead to more effective compliance and less adversarial interactions. This model contrasts with more regulatory or enforcement-driven models, which might focus on sanctions and formal adjudications.

Under Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL), proving compliance often revolves around demonstrating that valid consent (either express or implied) was obtained before sending commercial electronic messages. Keeping detailed records of how and when consent was obtained from recipients is crucial to demonstrate compliance if questioned by regulators or in the event of a complaint. This practice not only helps businesses defend their messaging practices but also aligns with the requirements of CASL to maintain evidence of consent. Hence, the correct answer is B, "Keeping records of express and implied consent of commercial electronic messages."

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.

Alberta's Health Information Act (HIA) is not considered substantially similar to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). While the HIA governs the collection, use, and disclosure of health information specifically within Alberta, it is structured differently and has distinct provisions compared to PIPEDA, which is a federal privacy law applicable to the private sector across all provinces and territories in Canada, except for those areas where provincial privacy laws have been deemed substantially similar. The other provincial acts listed (from New Brunswick, Ontario, and Nova Scotia) are recognized by the federal government as being substantially similar to PIPEDA, meaning they provide similar protections and can supersede PIPEDA within their respective jurisdictions for the handling of health information.

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 Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), there are specific circumstances where a commercial business in Canada is allowed to collect personal information without the knowledge or consent of the individual1. These exceptions include:

• Journalistic or literary purposes (option A): Organizations may collect personal information without consent when it’s for journalistic, artistic, or literary purposes, as these activities are considered to fall under the freedom of expression provisions.
• Interests of the individual (option B): If the collection is clearly in the interests of the individual and consent cannot be obtained in a timely way, for example in emergency situations where the individual’s life, health, or security is threatened.
• Investigative purposes (option D): When the collection with the knowledge of the individual would compromise the availability or accuracy of the information, and the collection is reasonable for purposes related to investigating a breach of an agreement or a contravention of the laws of Canada or a province.

However, option C is not one of the exceptions provided under PIPEDA. The act does not allow for the collection of personal information without consent solely on the basis that the collection would lead to the creation of products that would benefit the public and consent would be difficult to obtain. While public benefit is a consideration in the ethical use of personal information, it does not override the requirement for consent under PIPEDA unless the situation falls under other specific exceptions1.

Therefore, the correct answer is C, as it is the exception that is not permitted under the current framework of PIPEDA for collecting personal information without the knowledge or consent of the individual1.

Under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), personal information is defined as information about an identifiable individual. However, information that is publicly available, such as a public official's salary listed on a government website, is excluded from protection under PIPEDA's regulations specifying what constitutes publicly available information. The salaries of public officials, as government transparency measures, are specifically designated as public information. In contrast, the other options listed—telephone numbers in a public directory, photographs taken in public, and court records—although they might seem public, are not explicitly designated as exempt from PIPEDA in the same way, and could still be considered personal information depending on the context.

The primary motivation for a federal government entity to complete a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) is to receive program approvals from the Treasury Board of Canada. The Directive on Privacy Impact Assessment states that a PIA is required to ensure that privacy implications are properly addressed and that the program or service conforms with privacy protection requirements. This process is essential for obtaining necessary approvals from the Treasury Board, which oversees government spending and operations. The PIA helps demonstrate that the program respects privacy principles and the legal framework governing personal information handling by federal entities.

Safeguarding and securing sensitive information under privacy legislation generally falls into three main categories: Administrative, Technical, and Physical. Administrative safeguards involve policies and procedures that manage the conduct of the organization's staff and the security of its data. Technical safeguards involve the technology used to protect data and control access to it. Physical safeguards refer to the measures taken to protect physical computer systems and related buildings and equipment from harm and unauthorized physical access. Therefore, the correct answer is B, "Physical," which complements administrative and technical safeguards to create a comprehensive security environment.

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.

According to the typical frameworks of voluntary codes of conduct concerning the responsible development and management of advanced generative AI systems, signatories commit to several actions to ensure ethical practices. These usually include contributing to the development and application of AI standards, sharing information and best practices of AI governance, and supporting public awareness and education on AI. However, adopting low-risk uses of AI as a specific commitment is not typically included in these codes. Such codes generally emphasize responsible development and management practices rather than limiting the adoption to low-risk uses, aiming to address broader ethical and governance issues across various applications of AI.

In addressing emerging AI issues, frameworks that are specific to product safety, copyright, or criminal behavior may provide some indirect governance, but their applicability is limited compared to more direct regulatory mechanisms. Among the options listed, the Motor Vehicle Safety Act is the least effective in addressing AI issues as this act is specifically targeted towards the safety regulations of motor vehicles and is less applicable to broader AI issues that may involve data privacy, ethical considerations, and other non-vehicle-specific technologies. Therefore, while AI can be involved in vehicle safety, this act is less equipped to broadly address emerging AI issues beyond automotive safety standards. Hence, the correct answer is B, "The Motor Vehicle Safety Act."

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.

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.