E-10-(i)Book of Authorities
18 passages
II BACKGROUND - [8] On June 12, 2017, E1 filed the Application seeking a Board Order compelling NSPI to provide the Customer Usage Data and the Names and Emails. - [9] The Board determined the Application should proceed by a paper hearing,...
AI summary E1 filed an application in 2017 seeking customer data from NSPI, leading to a paper hearing. The Board set a timeline, with interventions from CA, SBA, IG, and NSDOE. NSPI submitted evidence, and E1 rebutted. The text outlines legislative changes transferring DSM responsibilities from NSPI to ENSC and later to E1 under the PUA and ENSCA.
Purpose - 3 The purpose of this Part 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 manne...
AI summary This section establishes rules for personal information governance, balancing individual privacy rights with organizational needs for data collection and disclosure. It references Schedule 1 of PIPEDA, emphasizing appropriate use of personal information in the context of technological advancements.
well as in a manner consistent with its Affiliate Code of Conduct. - [33] It further indicates the transfer of the Names and Emails is consistent with NSPI's own privacy policy, which states, in part: We do not sell or rent our customers'...
AI summary NSPI and E1 discuss data privacy practices, opt-out mechanisms for DSM promotions under the PUA, and historical data sharing with OPower. E1 argues opt-out aligns with PUA and convenience, while NSPI highlights concerns over customer data release and references prior OPower collaboration.
i) Statutory Interpretation - [42] Based on the legislative history of the enactment of s. 79K of the PUA , the purpose of the legislation, and the language used in this provision, E1 submits that the legislation is "broadly worded and sho...
AI summary E1 argues that s. 79K of the PUA should be interpreted expansively, allowing disclosure of personal information from NSPI under the 2016-2018 Supply Agreement, which was approved by the Board. The legislative intent and language support this broad interpretation.
Information to be provided by public utilities and confidentiality - 21 (1) Upon written notice from the Corporation, a public utility shall, within such reasonable time as is specified in the notice, provide to the Corporation, for the pu...
AI summary The text outlines legal requirements for public utilities to disclose customer electricity data to the Corporation, with confidentiality exceptions. It references 2014 legislative amendments under the PUA and EECRA, which transferred DSM functions from Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation to E1 (EfficiencyOne) as the initial franchise holder.
Information and assistance for new franchise holder - 79E (1) In the event of the termination or expiration of a franchise, the franchise holder shall provide a new franchise holder with the information in its possession or control, includ...
AI summary This section outlines obligations for franchise holders to transfer information and assistance to new holders or Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NSP) upon franchise termination, ensuring uninterrupted electricity efficiency activities. Confidentiality rules apply, with exceptions for publicly available information. The Minister directs the transfer process, and NSP acts as a fallback recipient if no new franchise holder exists.
iii) Are the Names and Email necessary to enable E1 to provide NSPI with reasonably available cost-effective energy efficiency and conservation activities? [75] NSPI's position on the necessity of the Names and Emails is summarized at p. 1...
AI summary NSPI argues E1 has not proven the necessity of customer Names and Emails for cost-effective DSM activities, emphasizing existing data availability and privacy concerns. The CA found E1's evidence insufficient and requested further comments. Privacy balancing is emphasized over E1's cost pressures.
b) Analysis and Findings - [116] E1 submits the Customer Usage Data falls squarely within the ambit of s. 79K(1) of the PUA , in that it will provide it with customer electricity usage and load information for specific locations, on an ong...
AI summary E1 argues Customer Usage Data falls under PUA s. 79K(1) for DSM activities. NSPI agrees some data may fall under this section. The CA supports E1 but questions data necessity. SBA opposes releasing phone numbers due to privacy. The Board concludes most data is acceptable except phone numbers, which raise PIPEDA concerns.
Information and assistance for new franchise holder - 79E (1) In the event of the termination or expiration of a franchise, the franchise holder shall provide a new franchise holder with the information in its possession or control, includ...
AI summary When a franchise terminates or expires, the franchise holder must provide information and assistance to a new franchise holder or NSPI to ensure uninterrupted electricity efficiency and conservation activities. Confidentiality is required, except for public or legally mandated disclosures. This provision is under the Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Restructuring (2014) Act.
Information for franchise holder - 79K (1) Nova Scotia Power Incorporated shall provide a franchise holder with such information in its possession or control, including records and personal information, respecting customer electricity usag...
AI summary Nova Scotia Power Incorporated (NSPI) must provide franchise holders with customer electricity usage data to support energy efficiency programs. Franchise holders may request this information, and NSPI must comply within a reasonable period. Confidentiality applies except for publicly available or legally required disclosures. Disputes may be resolved by the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB).
Conflict of interest - 8 (1) No member who acts in a matter affecting a public utility shall be directly or indirectly employed by or interested in a public utility or interested in a share, stock, bond, mortgage, security or contract of t...
AI summary The text outlines conflict-of-interest rules for members of regulatory bodies handling public utilities and municipalities. Members must not have financial interests in utilities, except for purchasing services. Failure to comply may lead to office vacancies. Exceptions exist for residents and ratepayers. The provisions are part of the Utility and Review Board Act, 1992, c. 11, s. 8.
11. CONFIDENTIAL AND PERSONAL INFORMATION - 10 11 11.1 The Parties have executed or agree to execute the confidentiality agreement attached hereto as Schedule "D" - Confidentiality ("Confidentiality Agreement"). - 12 13 14 11.2 EfficiencyO...
AI summary The section outlines a confidentiality agreement between EfficiencyOne and NSPI, requiring EfficiencyOne to secure personal information and indemnify NSPI against liabilities from misuse or disclosure, including contravention of CASL. Schedule D is referenced as the confidentiality agreement.
27.1 Subject to the provisions of the Act, ail provisions of this Agreement which by their express terms or nature are continuing shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement, including, without limitation, this provision,...
AI summary The text outlines provisions that survive the expiration or termination of an agreement, including those related to the EECA Plan, confidentiality, indemnity, and other general provisions. These continuing provisions are essential for determining liability and interpreting the agreement.
43 45 SCHEDULE C 46 47 Performance Requirements 48 1. UARB-APPROVED PERFORMANCE TARGETS. THRESHOLDS. AND 49 INDICATORS 50 51 a) Performance Targets Thresholds: and 52 53 i. compliance EfficiencyOne is deemed in substantial with the UARB to...
AI summary This document outlines performance requirements and a confidentiality agreement between EfficiencyOne and Nova Scotia Power Incorporated (NSPI). It includes UARB-approved performance targets, thresholds, and indicators for energy efficiency programs, as well as a confidentiality agreement related to the Supply Agreement for Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Activities.
Confidential Information 1. The Parties agree that for the purpose of this Agreement "Confidential Information" means all information, regardless of the form in which it is communicated or maintained and prepared by the Disclosing Party, a...
AI summary The document defines 'Confidential Information' as any information shared between the Parties under the Supply Agreement, Legislation, or as directed by the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board. It includes reports, analyses, contracts, and other commercially sensitive materials, whether printed or electronic, and any information provided in response to information requests filed with the Board.
No Obligation to Disclose 32 33 3. This Agreement does not obligate either Party to disclose any Confidential Information to the other.
AI summary The agreement states that neither party is required to disclose any confidential information to the other.
Permitted Disclosures - 6. The Recipient shall be permitted to disclose relevant aspects of the Confidential Information to its employees and professional advisors to the extent that such disclosure is reasonably necessary for the performa...
AI summary The permitted disclosures section outlines the conditions under which a recipient may share confidential information with employees and advisors, ensuring they are aware of confidentiality obligations. It also allows disclosure under legal requirements, with prior notice to the disclosing party and efforts to remove commercially sensitive information.
Limited Rights 2 12. The Recipient agrees that no rights are granted to Recipient other than the limited rights to use the Confidential Information on the terms of this Agreement. For certainty, no license is granted under this Agreement (...
AI summary The Recipient is granted only limited rights to use the Confidential Information under the terms of the Agreement, with no licenses granted under any intellectual or industrial property rights.
E-13-(i)Book of Authorities
18 passages
Cases Cited By Wagner C.J. and Moldaver, Gascon, Côté, Brown, Rowe and Martin JJ. Considered: Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; Delta Air Lines Inc. v. Lukács , 2018 SCC 2, [2018] 1 S.C.R. 6;...
AI summary The document lists cases cited by the Supreme Court of Canada and other courts, including immigration, privacy, and railway-related rulings. Key cases include Baker v. Canada and Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. Alberta Teachers' Association , highlighting legal precedents in administrative law and rights.
Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta Citation: Business Watch International Inc. v. Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2009 ABQB 10 Date: 20090108 Docket: 0803 04984, 0803 04558, 0803 04581 Registry: Edmonton In the Matter of a c...
AI summary Business Watch International Inc. challenged orders issued by Alberta's Information and Privacy Commissioner under PIPA and FOIP Act, concerning EMU Inc.'s (Cash Converters) disclosure of personal information. The case involves disputes over privacy compliance, with intervenors including Edmonton's city and police services, and orders F2007-001/F2007-002/P2007-001.
Summary - [1] In January, 2006, Kelly Buryniuk, an Edmonton pawnshop owner, initiated a test case by complaining to the Information and Privacy Commissioner about the City of Edmonton's Business Licence Bylaw which requires pawnshops to co...
AI summary Kelly Buryniuk, an Edmonton pawnshop owner, challenged the City of Edmonton's Business Licence Bylaw requiring pawnshops to collect and share personal pawnor information with the Edmonton Police Service. The Information and Privacy Commissioner ruled the bylaw violated privacy rights, citing the city's lack of authority and inadequate safeguards for personal data managed by Business Watch International Inc.
SCC 9; Alberta Justice v. Roy (December 3, 1996), Docket 9603-16335; University of Alberta v. Pylypiuk , 2001 ABQB 22; Alberta (Attorney General) v. Krushell , 2003 ABQB 252; Shields v. Information and Privacy Commissioner , 2004 ABQB 353;...
AI summary The text lists legal cases and regulatory orders cited in a Nova Scotia proceeding, primarily involving Alberta courts, privacy commissions, and federal rulings. Cases span Alberta's Queen's Bench, Supreme Court of Canada, and other provincial courts, with references to privacy, information disclosure, and regulatory decisions.
loss of jurisdiction issues generally, or that issue in this case. Therefore, according to the principles in Dunsmuir , this court must undertake its own Pushpanathan standard of review analysis. - [55] Dealing then with the four factors i...
AI summary The court applies the Pushpanathan standard of review, concluding that reasonableness is the appropriate standard for assessing the Commissioner's decisions under the Personal Information Protection Act and Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The privative clause in the legislation, the Commissioner's expertise, and the nature of the statutory time limits question support this conclusion.
a) Standard of review - [62] The standard of review for the Commissioner's decision on the authority for the collection of personal information in the circumstances here is the standard of correctness. - [63] The Commissioner is, of course...
AI summary The court applies the standard of correctness to the Commissioner's decision on personal information collection under Edmonton's licensing bylaw, as the Commissioner lacks expertise in municipal law. The Commissioner's ruling that uploading data to an electronic database is unauthorized is deemed incorrect.
[66] He then concluded: While I agree that the bylaw enables the City Manager to require information to be recorded electronically, I do not agree that this authority includes requiring information to be uploaded to a database established...
AI summary The judge concludes that the bylaw's authority allows electronic recording but not uploading to a private database. The requirement for pawnshops and second-hand stores to provide information to the police service is broader than the bylaw's provisions, and uploading to a private database is not equivalent to recording personal information.
- [84] That subsection would be redundant if information that was collected pursuant to a statutory requirement were automatically collected for a public body. Moreover, it is clear that Cash Converters was not acting as an agent of the Ci...
AI summary The text discusses the Commissioner's errors in applying privacy laws ( PIPA and FOIP ) to Cash Converters' data collection and disclosure practices. It argues that Cash Converters, as an independent business, was not subject to FOIP and that the Commissioner misapplied standards for volunteered vs. required information under PIPA . The analysis also questions the Commissioner's conclusion about Cash Converters' authority to disclose personal information to the Edmonton Police Service.
c) Did the Commissioner have the jurisdiction to order the City of Edmonton to destroy BWI's database? [104] There are two reasons why the Commissioner did not have the jurisdiction to order the City of Edmonton to destroy BWI's database:...
AI summary The Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to order the City of Edmonton to destroy BWI's database because BWI is not an employee of the city, and the Commissioner's authority is limited to data collected in violation of statutes. Additionally, the Commissioner breached natural justice by devising a remedy without consulting parties.
I. BACKGROUND - [para 1] Municipal Bylaw 13138 requires pawnshops and second-hand stores in Edmonton to record the personal information of individuals who pawn or sell items. The bylaw also requires pawnshops and second-hand stores to "mak...
AI summary Edmonton's Bylaw 13138 requires pawnshops to collect personal data and share it with BWI, a private company. A complainant challenged this, questioning the legality of data collection by the City, EPS, and BWI. The Ontario Court of Appeal's 2007 decision in Cash Converters Canada v. Oshawa influenced the inquiry, with parties submitting written arguments on privacy laws like the Municipal Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act.
III. ISSUES [para 10] The following issues are identified in the Notice of Inquiry dated June 28, 2006 for Request for Review #3561: Issue A: Is the Complainant's personal information in the custody or under the control of the City for the...
AI summary The proceeding addresses legal questions under the FOIP Act regarding the City's control and handling of personal information, the Edmonton Police Service's authority to collect data, and potential conflicts between municipal bylaws and FOIP. It also examines the applicability of PIPA versus FOIP and compliance with PIPA's provisions on data collection, disclosure, and reasonableness.
Preliminary Questions [para 14] I will address two preliminary questions, as answering these questions will assist me to answer the issues identified for review. - 1. Does Bylaw 13138 authorize the City Manager to require pawnshops and sec...
AI summary The text addresses two preliminary questions regarding Bylaw 13138, which requires pawnshops and secondhand stores to upload client personal information to a BWI-managed database. The City Manager's directive mandates compliance, and EPS has access to the database. Compliance requires specific technological resources.
Issue A: Is the Complainant's personal information in the custody or under the control of the City for the purposes of the FOIP Act? - [para 28] There is no dispute that the Complainant's information and the information of other individual...
AI summary The City of Edmonton disputes having custody of the Complainant's personal information stored in a BWI database, while EPS argues the City lacks control. The Complainant claims the City directed data collection via Bylaw 13138. Section 4(1) of the FOIP Act applies if a public body has custody or control over records.
Issue B: Does the City of Edmonton have the authority to collect the Complainant's personal information, as provided by sections 33 and 34 of the FOIP Act?
AI summary The City of Edmonton's authority to collect personal information under sections 33 and 34 of the FOIP Act is under scrutiny. The FOIP Act governs access to government records and personal information collection. The issue centers on whether the City's actions comply with these provisions, focusing on lawful data collection and disclosure requirements.
Section 33 [para 36] The City did not provide submissions on this issue, as it takes the position that it does not have custody or control over the database, and consequently, does not have control over personal information collected in th...
AI summary The City claims no control over a database and thus didn't collect the Complainant's information. The Complainant argues the City lacks authority under FOIP Act sections 33 and 34 as the bylaw doesn't authorize data collection. EPS asserts the bylaw is an enactment under FOIP Regulation and that the information isn't sensitive, with minimal consequences from breaches.
Section 34 [para 47] Section 34 prohibits a Public Body from collecting personal information indirectly except in certain circumstances. It states in part: - 34(1) A public body must collect personal information directly from the individua...
AI summary Section 34 restricts public bodies from collecting personal information indirectly, permitting exceptions such as health emergencies, law enforcement, eligibility determinations, and public source data collection. Direct collection is required unless authorized by the individual, statutory provisions, or specific emergency circumstances.
Issue C: Does the City of Edmonton have the Authority to disclose the Complainant's personal information to the Edmonton Police Service, as provided by section 40(1) of the FOIP Act? - [para 52] Section 40 of the FOIP Act sets out the situ...
AI summary Issue C examines whether the City of Edmonton can disclose the Complainant's personal information to the Edmonton Police Service under section 40(1) of the FOIP Act. The FOIP Act outlines conditions for disclosure, including consent, purpose, and privacy considerations. The City argues compliance with these conditions, while the Complainant challenges potential privacy violations under section 17.
Issue E: Does the Edmonton Police Service have the authority to collect the Complainant's personal information, as provided by sections 33 and 34 of the FOIP Act?
AI summary The issue examines whether the Edmonton Police Service has the authority to collect personal information under sections 33 and 34 of the FOIP Act, focusing on legal permissions and compliance with privacy regulations.