CIPP-C Practice Exam Questions with Answers Certified Information Privacy Professional/ Canada (CIPP/C) Certification

Under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), express consent is not required when the personal information is publicly available as defined by the regulation. According to the regulations specifying publicly available information under PIPEDA, certain types of information, like that published in directories or records where the individual has provided the information for public dissemination, are excluded from the consent requirement. This provision is aimed at balancing the need for privacy protection with the practicalities of information that has been intentionally made public by the individual or by legal requirement. The other options listed (A, C, D) generally require express consent as they involve uses of personal information that either extend beyond what the individual would reasonably expect, or change the context in which the information was originally collected.

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.

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.

A significant difference between the federal Privacy Commissioner and provincial privacy commissioners in Canada is in their enforcement powers. Provincial privacy commissioners, such as those in Alberta and British Columbia, have the authority to order organizations to take specific actions to comply with provincial privacy laws. This can include orders to stop certain practices or to take corrective measures. In contrast, the federal Privacy Commissioner, overseeing federal statutes like the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), primarily makes recommendations following investigations and must seek court orders to enforce compliance. Thus, the correct answer is A, "Provincial commissioners can order an organization to act."

Under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), when an organization transfers personal information to a third party for processing, it remains responsible for that information. It is required to use contractual or other means to provide a comparable level of protection while the information is being processed by the third party. The most appropriate answer here is A, establishing a contract outlining the individual outsourcing arrangement. This ensures that the third party adheres to privacy obligations equivalent to those of PIPEDA. This requirement is directly stated in PIPEDA’s accountability principle, which mandates organizations to use contractual or other means to provide a comparable level of protection while information is being processed by a third party.

Translating the hotel's registration page into German based on the visitor's IP address is most likely to result in a finding that the boutique hotel in Montreal is subject to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). This action could be interpreted as targeting European Union residents specifically, thereby bringing the hotel’s activities within the scope of the GDPR. Actions like language customization based on geographic location explicitly target individuals within the EU, demonstrating intent to offer services directly to these consumers, a key criterion for GDPR applicability.

In the context of Canadian privacy law and specifically according to the principles derived from PIPEDA and relevant case law such as the Eastman case, video cameras in the workplace begin collecting personal information at the moment a recording occurs. This is because the recording captures identifiable images of individuals, thereby constituting the collection of personal information under privacy legislation. The act of recording, which captures and stores visual data, meets the definition of personal information collection since it involves storing images from which individuals can be identified. Therefore, the correct answer is A, "At the moment a recording occurs."

In the scenario described, the most significant procedural flaw at the daycare is their failure to respond to the parent's request about the portal’s security measures within a reasonable time frame. Under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), organizations are required to respond to such requests within 30 days. This timeframe is mandated to ensure transparency and to provide individuals with timely access to information about the handling of their personal data. The daycare’s failure to provide an answer within this period violates PIPEDA's provisions regarding the access to personal information and the accountability of organizations in managing this data securely and transparently.

For a federally regulated company operating across multiple provinces, reporting obligations for a privacy breach involving personal information depend on the applicable provincial legislation as well as federal requirements under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). PIPEDA requires that organizations report to the Privacy Commissioner of Canada any breach of security safeguards involving personal information that poses a real risk of significant harm. Additionally, provinces like Alberta and British Columbia have specific legislation that mandates reporting to provincial regulators. Quebec's privacy law also includes breach notification provisions. Therefore, the company must report the breach to both the federal Commissioner and the provincial privacy regulators in all provinces where its customers are affected if those provinces have mandatory breach reporting laws. This ensures compliance with both federal and applicable provincial laws. Thus, the correct answer is B, "All of the provinces where its customers are located."

Sensitive personal information is generally defined as data that, if disclosed, could lead to significant harm to the individual, such as identity theft or discrimination. Credit scores, medical histories, and dates of birth are considered sensitive due to their potential use in fraud or as critical identifiers in health and financial contexts. Educational transcripts, while personal, are generally not considered sensitive because they typically do not expose individuals to the same level of risk if disclosed. Thus, the correct answer is D, "Educational transcripts."

Biometric information is considered sensitive personal information primarily because it possesses characteristics that are uniquely and intrinsically linked to the individual. Biometric data such as fingerprints, facial recognition patterns, and DNA are distinctive, largely unique to the individual, unlikely to change over time, and difficult to alter. This inherent nature of biometric data makes it extremely sensitive, as its misuse or unauthorized access can lead to significant privacy invasions and potentially irreversible harm. Therefore, the correct answer is C.

The Canadian Standards Association (CSA) was the primary influence in the development of Canadian privacy principles with the publication of the CSA Model Code for the Protection of Personal Information. This set of eight privacy principles later became part of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), serving as a foundation for how personal information should be handled by private sector organizations in Canada. The CSA's Model Code includes principles such as accountability, identifying purposes, consent, limiting collection, limiting use, disclosure and retention, accuracy, safeguards, openness, individual access, and challenging compliance. Therefore, the correct answer is D, "The Canadian Standards Association (CSA)."

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.

The main reason a country might adopt an "ombudsman" model of privacy oversight is to reduce the perception that compliance is a confrontational process. The ombudsman model focuses on mediation and resolution rather than enforcement, aiming to resolve issues through dialogue and negotiation rather than punitive measures. This approach helps to foster a cooperative relationship between the regulator and the entities they oversee, which can lead to more effective compliance and less adversarial interactions. This model contrasts with more regulatory or enforcement-driven models, which might focus on sanctions and formal adjudications.

From the Blood Tribe case, it can be concluded that the Privacy Commissioner of Canada can officially request proof that the information sought in an investigation is subject to solicitor-client privilege. The Supreme Court of Canada held in this case that while the Commissioner has significant investigative powers, these do not automatically override the solicitor-client privilege. The decision clarifies that any organization claiming such a privilege must substantiate its claim, and the Commissioner has the authority to challenge and request proof of this claim, ensuring the privilege is not used improperly to withhold information.

Under the Alberta Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA), when a real risk of significant harm (RROSH) from a data breach has been determined, the organization must notify both the individuals affected and the Privacy Commissioner of Alberta. The law requires that notifications include the description of the personal information involved in the breach, the number of individuals affected, and the steps taken to reduce or mitigate harm. However, a description of the steps the organization will take to notify affected individuals is part of the process following the assessment and initial report, not an immediate requirement when notifying the Commissioner of the RROSH itself.

Under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), when personal information is collected by a Canadian company and shared for purposes other than those for which the customer provided consent originally, additional consent from the customers is required. This is particularly necessary when the information is intended to be used for a new purpose, such as marketing. Therefore, if ABC Corp wishes to send the data sets to a US-based marketing partner for new uses, they must first seek additional consent from their customers, as this involves a new purpose not previously agreed upon by the data subjects. This requirement is fundamental to ensuring compliance with PIPEDA's consent principle, which mandates that consent must be obtained whenever personal information is used for a purpose not previously consented to by the individual.