10.22 The availability of a defence from legal authority is consistent with previous investigations into legal reform. [17] Using the Directive/legal framework set out above, none of these rights can be addressed, as personal data can be accessed by a public authority without the knowledge of the individual. There is no way to know that the information has been collected, distributed or used and no trigger for accuracy. In other words, in the event that the information is incorrect, due to the secrecy of the process of obtaining the information, neither the ability to know the information is incorrect, nor the ability to correct the information is ever triggered. A lot of damage can be done before the person has ever had a chance to correct it. 10.10 The analogous defence of the legal authority against intentional tort protects individuals and authorities from civil actions in which the conduct of a defendant has been committed in order to prevent and detect criminal offences; in the exercise of powers of arrest; and in the provision of public services and public services. [3] One possible interpretation of the term “legal authority” in the context of PIPEDA is that it is simply a matter of identifying one`s credentials as a legitimate law enforcement officer acting in the course of his or her duties and duties. However, this interpretation is unlikely, as it is already included in the requirement in the existing provision that the request be made by a government agent for law enforcement purposes. As Justice of the Peace Conacher stated in his reasons for rejecting a search warrant at S.C.

(Re) 2006 ONCJ 343 Abs. 9: The organization can only comply with this request if the police can determine their legitimate authority to obtain the information, which essentially means that it is information for which the individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy under section 8 of the Charter. (p.165; Philippa Lawson is legal counsel to the Government of Yukon and was executive director of the Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) Perhaps the power to obtain personal data should be better placed in administrative tribunals that have the technical competence to make an informed decision than in ordinary courts, who do not have the skills and are not expected to: that they have the skills to manage precision and accuracy. 10.14 However, the ALRC considers that the cause of legal action would provide a personal remedy to individuals whose privacy has been violated if an organization acts outside its legal powers. Those following the development of Canada`s data protection legislation have long been waiting for amendments to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (“PIPEDA”), some of which are proposed in Bill C-12. This rather long article deals with only one of these changes: the proposed new definition of “legal authority”. These sample sentences are automatically selected from various online information sources to reflect the current use of the word “legal.” The opinions expressed in the examples do not represent the opinion of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us your feedback. Another interpretation is that “legal authority” requires legal authority, such as the proposed new law requiring access to participants` data without a court order. But if the legislator had understood by “legal authority” only “legal authority”, he could and would have wanted to use this term. It must be presumed that Parliament meant more than just a legislative power when it used the broader term “lawful power”.

10.20 The term “authority” implies discretion in the pursuit of certain lawful conduct and may refer to a variety of acts or practices. [15] 10.8 Defending legal powers protects government agencies, security and intelligence agencies, and law enforcement agencies from liability for serious invasion of privacy if such conduct was consistent with their legal powers. [1] In the absence of a clear legal authority for police to obtain participant information (and other personal information) without a warrant, the term “legal authority” has been subject to conflicting interpretations, with some TSPs believing it to be an arrest warrant or court order, and courts having difficulty determining its scope. Therefore, if a police request for information is not consistent with the Charter, e.B. because there are insufficient grounds to suspect that the information requested has something to do with criminal misconduct, or because the information requested raises a reasonable expectation of privacy, the TSP is not authorized to disclose the information in accordance with section 7, paragraph 3, point (c.1). This legal prohibition on the TSP`s right to disclose perfectly reflects the fact that the police officer does not have the constitutional authority to request the information. While this amendment certainly clarifies that “lawful authority” does not mean a court order or warrant, it does not specify what is required for “legal authority” to exist. The proposed change therefore has little support for the courts and leaves TSPs uncertain about when and when they can legally disclose customer information to police. Alternatively, the term “legal authority” could be replaced by “legal authority”. The government could then pass laws, as proposed in this package of reforms, that allow or require organizations to disclose certain types of personal data to law enforcement agencies upon request without a subpoena, warrant or court order. TSPs and others would then have the certainty they need about the legality of warrantless applications, and questions of constitutionality would focus on the legal authority on which these disclosures are based.

(a) the legal authority means a legitimate authority other than (i) a subpoena or warrant issued or issued by a court, person or body competent to compel the submission of information, or (ii) judicial rules on the production of documents; and (b) the organization disclosing the personal data is not required to verify the validity of the legal authority identified by the government institution or part of a government institution. (clause 6(12) of Bill C-12) The legal authority to participate in any otherwise illegal conduct must be clearly expressed in unambiguous and unambiguous language. The insistence on the express authorization to suspend or restrict a fundamental right, freedom or immunity must be understood as a requirement for declaration or an indication that the legislator has not only focused its attention on the question of the abolition or restriction of these fundamental rights, freedoms and immunities, but has also determined their abolition or circumcision. [2] 10.17 The ALRC did not provide guidance on the importance of “legal authority” as this may well be an editorial issue. However, the ALRC welcomes stakeholders` responses to the wording of this defence, taking into account whether the exception should be clarified. 10.12 AFP provided examples of legal requirements that may include the authorized acquisition of an individual`s personal information. [6] For example, the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 (Cth)[7] requires AFP to protect commonwealth interests, prevent crime and protect individuals from injury, death and property damage. AFP stated that telecommunications service providers (“TSPs”) under the Privacy Act are only permitted to disclose “personal data” (including name, address and other information about an identifiable individual) without the INDIVIDUAL`s knowledge or consent under PIPEDA. One of these circumstances is when disclosure “to a state institution …

who made a request for information, identified their legal authority to obtain the information and indicated it. (ii) disclosure for the purposes of. conduct an investigation in the context of the application of such a law [of Canada, a province or a foreign jurisdiction] … (Emphasis added). . Kind. Subsection 7(3) provides that information may be provided without consent only if the requesting organization has “indicated its lawful authority to obtain the information” and has indicated that disclosure (in this case) is being requested for law enforcement purposes. The law does not stipulate that the existence of a criminal investigation is in itself a “legal authority” within the meaning of the law, nor does a “letter requesting account information in connection with an investigation into the sexual exploitation of children” establish such an authority. Therefore, there must always be a “legal authority” to obtain the information; According to the Court, Article 7(3)(3)(.c(ii) does not in itself determine what that `legal authority` is. See the full definition of lawfulness in the English Language Learners Dictionary 10.9 This is consistent with the principle that any authorization granted to public sector bodies or public servants to pursue conduct that may infringe the rights or interests of a person must be clearly and unambiguously justified in the law. In Coco v R, a majority of the High Court of Australia declared this so-called principle of legality: but whether a particular application is charter-compliant is not always clear, even for lawyers and judges.

It is therefore not reasonable to expect TSPs to be able to conduct their own charter analysis with respect to any request they receive from law enforcement agencies. For this reason alone, section 7(3)(c.1) of PIPEDA needs to be amended. However, the proposed amendment would not provide TSPs with the assurance they need (although it relieves the disclosing body of the obligation to verify the validity of the claimed legal authority). That`s because it doesn`t specify what “legal authority” is – that is, what it would look like for a TSP facing a demand. .