03/02/2020 2017 FC 114 (CanLII) | CanLII PIPEDA can apply to Globe24h as a foreign-based organization because there is an established ‘real and substantial connection’ between the parties and/or the facts giving rise to the complaint in Canada; The ‘journalistic purpose’ exception under paragraph 4(2)(c) of PIPEDA does not apply to the respondent’s activities because the underlying purpose of Globe24h is to generate revenue by incentivizing individuals to pay to have their personal information removed; The underlying purpose of Globe24h – which is to make available Canadian court and tribunal decisions through search engines that allow the sensitive personal information of individuals to be found by happenstance – cannot be considered as appropriate from the perspective of a reasonable person under subsection 5(3) of PIPEDA; and, The ‘publicly available information’ exception does not apply to Globe24h’s activities because the website’s purpose in allowing the decisions to be indexed by popular search engines is not “directly related” to the purpose for which the personal information appears in the record or document. Therefore, the exceptions to PIPEDA’s knowledge and consent requirements described under paragraphs 7(1)(d), 7(2)(c.1) and 7(3)(h.1) do not apply in this situation. III. RELIEF SOUGHT [42] The applicant seeks the following remedies: a) an order for damages, including general, punitive, exemplary, discretionary and, including damages for the humiliation and distress suffered by the applicant; b) an order that the respondent correct their practices and comply with sections 5 to 10 of PIPEDA; c) an order that the respondent publish a notice of any of the actions taken or proposed to be taken to correct their practices so as to comply with PIPEDA; d) an order for an injunction; e) f) a declaration that the respondent contravened privacy legislation; an order that the respondent delete from his website and servers all court and tribunal decisions that is republished containing personal information, and remove these decisions from search engines caches; g) an order that the respondent is a vexatious litigant; and, h) an order for costs, including on a solicitor-client and full indemnity basis. [43] During the course of the hearing, the applicant acknowledged that a number of these proposed remedies would not be appropriate or available to him under the law. This is not a case, for example, for issuing a vexatious litigant order. Nor would costs on a solicitor-client and full indemnity basis be available to the applicant as he represented himself. The question of damages will be discussed further below. [44] The OPCC proposed the following declaration and orders: 1. The Respondent, Sebastian Radulescu, contravened the Personal Information Protection and Electronics Documents Act, SC 2000, c 5 by collecting, using and disclosing on his website, www.Globe24h.com (“Globe24h.com”), personal information contained in Canadian court and tribunal decisions for inappropriate purposes and without the consent of the individuals concerned; 2. The Respondent, Sebastian Radulescu, shall remove all Canadian court and tribunal decisions containing personal information from Globe24h.com and take the necessary steps to remove these decisions from search engines caches; 3. The Respondent, Sebastian Radulescu, shall refrain from further copying and republishing Canadian court and tribunal decisions containing personal information in a manner that contravenes the Personal Information and Electronic Documents Act, SC 2000, c 5; and 4. The Respondent, Sebastian Radulescu, shall pay the Applicant damages in the amount of XXXX. [No amount proposed]. https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2017/2017fc114/2017fc114.html 6/21