03/02/2020 2017 FC 114 (CanLII) | CanLII IV. RELEVANT LEGISLATION [45] The relevant legislation is attached to these reasons as an annex (Annex ‘A’) to facilitate the reading of this decision. V. ISSUES [46] Having considered the issues raised by the applicant and Commissioner, I would frame them as follows: A. Does PIPEDA have an extraterritorial application to Globe24h.com as a foreign-based organization? B. Is the respondent’s purpose for collecting, using and disclosing personal information “appropriate” under paragraph 5(3) of PIPEDA? C. Does the “publicly available” exception apply to the personal information republished on Globe24h.com under section 7 of PIPEDA? D. What remedies should this Court grant under section 16 of PIPEDA? VI. ANALYSIS [47] These reasons will focus on the Commissioner’s submissions. The applicant represented himself in these proceedings with the assistance of the OPCC. His submissions were brief but on point and articulate and he provided a list of relevant jurisprudence for the Court’s assistance. In addition to his personal interests in the matter, he argued that the respondent’s activities have the potential of bringing the administration of justice into disrepute as individuals may now be discouraged from approaching the judicial system out of fear of having their personal information more widely accessible online. A. Does PIPEDA have an extraterritorial application to Globe24h.com as a foreign based organization? (1) [48] The “real and substantial connection” test. The purpose of Part I of PIPEDA is to: …establish, in an era in which technology increasingly facilitates the circulation and exchange of information, rules to govern the collection, use and disclosure of personal information in a manner that recognizes the right of privacy of individuals with respect to their personal information and the need of organizations to collect, use or disclose personal information for purposes that a reasonable person would consider appropriate in the circumstances. [49] PIPEDA was enacted in response to the 1980 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data. It was designed to be part of an international system to protect the privacy of individuals as reflected in the European Data Protection Directive adopted in October 1995. Among other elements, the European Directive included a provision that prevented the transmission of any personal information outside the European Union unless the recipient country had legislation in place that would offer similar protection. PIPEDA was intended to offer that protection in Canada thus avoiding the extraterritorial effect of the European Directive on Canada. Romania is bound by the European Directive. One question to be addressed is whether PIPEDA can apply to activities abroad that have an impact on persons resident in Canada. [50] Section 4 of PIPEDA, the application provision for Part I, is silent with respect to the statute’s territorial reach. However, there is no language expressly limiting its application to Canada. In the absence of clear guidance from the statute, the Court can interpret it to apply in all circumstances in which there exists a “real and substantial link” to Canada, following the Supreme Court’s guidance in Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v Canadian Assn. of Internet Providers, 2004 SCC 45, [2004] 2 SCR 427 at paras 54-63 [SOCAN] and the other authorities cited therein. https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2017/2017fc114/2017fc114.html 7/21