Pass the IAPP Certified Information Privacy Professional CIPP-C Questions and answers with CertsForce

The Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Privacy Principles, which are part of the CSA Model Code for the Protection of Personal Information and have been incorporated into the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), specify that personal information shall be protected with security safeguards appropriate to the sensitivity of the information. This implies that not all personal information requires the same level of protection, but rather protection proportional to its sensitivity. Therefore, the statement in Option A, "Personal information shall be protected by the same security safeguards regardless of the sensitivity of the information," is not a CSA Privacy Principle and is incorrect.

In Ontario, as well as in most jurisdictions in Canada, once a patient discloses information to a healthcare provider, the information becomes part of their health record and cannot typically be altered or deleted based on the patient's subsequent regret or preference for privacy. Under privacy laws that apply to health information in Ontario, such as the Personal Health Information Protection Act (PHIPA), a patient does not have the right to have valid medical diagnoses removed or altered in their health record. However, they can request that the disclosure of their health information be restricted to certain persons or for certain purposes. Therefore, the patient would be most successful at pursuing Option B, requesting that the information be restricted from disclosure to other healthcare providers. This is supported by Section 20 of PHIPA, which allows individuals to withhold or withdraw consent for certain uses of their information, with necessary exceptions for emergency situations or other legally mandated disclosures.

Before an individual requester can commence a court application relating to the denial of access to personal information under the control of a federal government institution, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada must have completed an investigation and issued a report. This procedural step is crucial because it ensures that the administrative avenues for resolving access disputes are exhausted before judicial intervention is sought. The Privacy Commissioner's report may provide findings and recommendations that could resolve the matter without the need for court proceedings, or it might clarify the issues and the reasons behind the denial, thereby informing any subsequent legal challenges.

In Canada, the compliance requirements for private sector organizations subject to a finding by a Canadian federal or provincial privacy authority can vary depending on the jurisdiction. Specifically, in Québec, organizations are required to comply with the findings as a binding decision1. This is due to the legislative provisions set out in “An Act to modernize legislative provisions as regards the protection of personal information,” which was adopted unanimously on September 22, 2021, and came into force on September 22, 20221. The act introduces significant reforms to the private sector privacy laws in Québec, including mandatory breach reporting and administrative penalties for noncompliance1.

The other options provided do not accurately reflect the requirements across all jurisdictions in Canada:

Option B suggests compliance only with the findings of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, which does not account for provincial authorities like Québec’s Commission d’accès à l’information du Québec.

Option C, which states that organizations must adopt and apply the finding within 30 days of the published report in all jurisdictions, is not accurate as the response to findings can differ between federal and provincial levels.

Option D is specific to Ontario and does not represent a general requirement for all private sector organizations in Canada. It suggests applying for judicial review within a provincial court to accept or refute the finding, which is not a standard procedure across all provinces.

Therefore, the verified answer is A, as it correctly identifies the requirement for private sector organizations in Québec to comply with the findings as a binding decision, in line with the modernized privacy laws of the province1. It is important for organizations to be aware of the specific privacy laws and regulations that apply to their operations within different Canadian jurisdictions, as outlined by the CIPP/C certification program2

Work-product information is generally thought of as information that is prepared or collected as part of an individual’s responsibilities or activities in connection to their job. This includes documents, notes, reports, and other materials created as part of an employee's duties or during their employment. The focus here is on the content being directly related to the job functions and responsibilities rather than personal attributes or information unrelated to work tasks. This type of information is distinct from personal information that may be collected for HR purposes and is typically treated differently under privacy laws.

According to the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Model Code, which has been adopted into PIPEDA, personal information should be retained only as long as necessary to fulfill the purposes for which it was collected. This principle ensures that personal information is not kept indefinitely without a valid reason, supporting data minimization and limiting potential privacy risks associated with unnecessary data retention. This principle is reflected in the CSA Model Code's retention guideline, which emphasizes the need to retain personal information only for the duration required to achieve its intended purpose. Therefore, the correct statement is Option D.

In Ontario, the handling of personal information in the context of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests is governed by the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA) for municipalities, or the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) for provincial institutions, including hospitals. These acts typically allow for the disclosure of employment-related information, such as employee name, title, and designation, as this information is considered related to the individual's professional role rather than their personal life. Employee personal cell phone numbers and feedback about the employee from a colleague, however, are considered personal information and are generally protected from disclosure. Therefore, the statement "Employee name, title, and designation can be released as it is not classified as personal information" (Option C) is accurate.

The movement toward comprehensive privacy and data protection laws can largely be attributed to the need to ensure consistency with global laws. This factor is pivotal as it reflects the globalized nature of the digital economy and the cross-border flow of data. Ensuring that local laws are compatible with global standards helps in maintaining international trade relationships, encourages data exchange, and builds trust in digital transactions and interactions worldwide. It also helps countries keep pace with international best practices and meet the expectations of foreign partners and international regulatory requirements.

In addressing emerging AI issues, frameworks that are specific to product safety, copyright, or criminal behavior may provide some indirect governance, but their applicability is limited compared to more direct regulatory mechanisms. Among the options listed, the Motor Vehicle Safety Act is the least effective in addressing AI issues as this act is specifically targeted towards the safety regulations of motor vehicles and is less applicable to broader AI issues that may involve data privacy, ethical considerations, and other non-vehicle-specific technologies. Therefore, while AI can be involved in vehicle safety, this act is less equipped to broadly address emerging AI issues beyond automotive safety standards. Hence, the correct answer is B, "The Motor Vehicle Safety Act."

Under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), personal information is defined as information about an identifiable individual. However, information that is publicly available, such as a public official's salary listed on a government website, is excluded from protection under PIPEDA's regulations specifying what constitutes publicly available information. The salaries of public officials, as government transparency measures, are specifically designated as public information. In contrast, the other options listed—telephone numbers in a public directory, photographs taken in public, and court records—although they might seem public, are not explicitly designated as exempt from PIPEDA in the same way, and could still be considered personal information depending on the context.