03/02/2020
2017 FC 114 (CanLII) | CanLII
[13]
The complainants alleged that the decisions posted on Globe24h.com contained sensitive personal
information about them and/or their family members in relation to personal matters such as divorce proceedings,
immigration matters, health issues and personal bankruptcies. For example, one of the complaints concerned the
judicial review in this Court of an Immigration and Refugee Board decision relating to a HIV positive individual
sponsored for admission to Canada by her husband. There are many other examples among the complaints filed as
evidence by the OPCC of highly sensitive personal information discussed in the judgments and rulings posted on
Globe24h.com.
[14]
According to the OPCC, the complainants generally understood that the decisions would be published
somewhere to maintain a record of the proceedings and to assist the courts, legal profession and public in
understanding the development and application of the law. However, they did not understand why the decisions
would appear as a result of a casual search on a search engine such as Google. Such casual searches could be
conducted by members of their families, employers or neighbours who would have no prior knowledge of the
sensitive information. Examples provided included the risk of children, students or co-workers coming across
information of a highly personal nature.
[15]
The complainants particularly objected to the fact that the respondent was seeking payment for the
removal of the personal information from the website. The fees solicited for doing so varied widely. Moreover, if
payment was made with respect to removal of one version of the decision, additional payments could be demanded
for removal of other versions of the same information. This included, for example, the translation of the same
decision in a Federal Court proceeding or earlier rulings in the same case.
[16]
In reply to such complaints, the respondent offered a “free” removal service. However, this required a
request in writing and could take 180 days or more. Further, in order to have their personal information removed
from the website for free, individuals were asked to provide further personal information to Globe24h.com in a
“Request Form”. And the requestors were threatened with referral to prosecution authorities if the respondent
suspected that fraud was involved. In contrast, payment for removal could be easily transferred through an online
payment service, without providing any additional information. In other words, removal was expedited if the
requestor was willing to pay but delayed and obstructed if no payment was made.
[17]
One exhibit tendered in evidence concerned a service styled as “reputation.ca” which claimed to be able
to remove embarrassing information from Globe24h.com for a fee of $1,500. While there is no evidence linking the
respondent to this site, this exhibit demonstrates the impact of the respondent’s activities.
[18]
The evidence leads to the conclusion that the respondent was running a profit-making scheme to exploit
the online publication of Canadian court and tribunal decisions containing personal information.
C.
The facts pertaining to the applicant
[19]
The applicant was a party in labour relations proceedings involving his former employer. In June 2014,
he discovered while using the Google search engine that an Alberta Labour Board decision concerning his case had
been republished through Globe24h.com.
[20]
PIPEDA defines “personal information” very broadly in section 2 as information about an identifiable
individual. The applicant was concerned that the personal information in the labour relations proceedings, easily
accessible through Google or other online search engine, would affect his future employment prospects. Although
he is not certain that this has happened, he believes that it occurred in at least one instance when a prospective
employer chose not to make him an offer.
[21]
On June 13, 2014, the applicant contacted Globe24h.com and requested that his personal information be
removed. He was told by the respondent that he would have to pay a fee to have that done.
[22]
On June 14, 2014, the applicant filed a complaint against Globe24h.com under PIPEDA. The
Commissioner’s investigation, completed in June 2015, concluded that the applicant’s complaint was well-founded.
The Commissioner informed the applicant of his right to pursue this matter in this Court under section 14 of
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2017/2017fc114/2017fc114.html
3/21