03/02/2020 2017 FC 114 (CanLII) | CanLII international law and international tort: Van Breda, above, at para 87; see also Chevron, above, at paras 38-39; Davydiuk, above, at paras 28-29. B. The respondent is collecting, using and disclosing personal information in the course of ‘commercial activities’ [65] The Court is satisfied that the respondent is an “organization” within the meaning of paragraph 4(1)(a) of PIPEDA. First, Mr. Radulescu is a “person” and thus falls within the scope of an “organization” as defined under subsection 2(1) of PIPEDA. There is no evidence that Globe24h.com is anything other than a website created to carry out Mr. Radulescu’s activities. Second, the respondent is collecting, using and disclosing Canadian court and tribunal decisions containing personal information of litigants and other individuals named in the decisions. Third, the respondent’s activities are commercial in nature as he generated revenue from advertisements on his website and he charges a transaction fee before agreeing to remove the personal information of concerned individuals. [66] The respondent’s most recent claim that he does not charge for data removal and no longer generates revenue from Globe24h.com is not credible. The OPCC record establishes that the respondent has made similar claims in the past but when contacted by individuals to remove decisions from his website demanded a fee of 200 euros. In any event, he cannot escape the application of PIPEDA by claiming that his future activities will not be commercial in nature. C. The respondent’s purposes are not exclusively ‘journalistic’ in nature. [67] The respondent has claimed in communications with the OPCC that his purposes in operating Globe24h.com should be considered exclusively journalistic. Should the Court accept that claim, Part 1 of PIPEDA does not apply to his activities because the personal information collected, used or disclosed falls under the exception provided by paragraph 4(2)(c) of PIPEDA. [68] The “journalistic” purpose exception is not defined in PIPEDA and it has not received substantive treatment in the jurisprudence. The OPCC submits that the Canadian Association of Journalists has suggested that an activity should qualify as journalism only where its purpose is to (1) inform the community on issues the community values, (2) it involves an element of original production, and (3) it involves a “self-conscious discipline calculated to provide an accurate and fair description of facts, opinion and debate at play within a situation ”. Those criteria appear to be a reasonable framework for defining the exception. None of them would apply to what the respondent has done. [69] The Alberta Court of Appeal interpreted similar statutory language in Alberta’s Personal Information Protection Act, SA 2003, c P-6.5: United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 401 v Alberta (Attorney General), 2012 ABCA 130, [2012] AJ No 427, aff’d 2013 SCC 62 (CanLII), [2013] 3 SCR 733 [United Food]. Specifically, in considering the adjective “journalistic”, the Court of Appeal noted that “it is unreasonable to think that the Legislature intended it to be so wide as to encompass everything within the phrase “freedom of opinion and expression””: United Food, above, at para 56. Further, the Court noted that “[n]ot every piece of information posted on the Internet qualifies [as journalism]”: United Food, above, at para 59. [70] In my view, the respondent’s claimed purpose “to make law accessible for free on the Internet” on Globe24h.com cannot be considered “journalistic”. In this instance, there is no need to republish the decisions to make them accessible as they are already available on Canadian websites for free. The respondent adds no value to the publication by way of commentary, additional information or analysis. He exploits the content by demanding payment for its removal. [71] The evidence indicates that the respondent’s primary purpose is to incentivize individuals to pay to have their personal information removed from the website. A secondary purpose, until very recently, was to generate advertising revenue by driving traffic to his website through the increased exposure of personal information in search engines. There is no evidence that the respondent’s intention is to inform the public on matters of public interest. https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2017/2017fc114/2017fc114.html 11/21