Canada: Public Disclosure Of Private Facts: Recent Privacy Law Decisions

Last Updated: October 13 2015
Article by Larry P. Reimer and Laina Smith

In 2012 the Ontario Court of Appeal was presented, in the case of Jones v. Tsige, with a stark question: Does the common law of Ontario recognize a right to a civil action for damages for invasion of personal privacy?1

The answer to the question was held, at the time, to be properly answered in the affirmative, although questions about the scope of these claims do remain. The purpose of this brief paper is to outline typical privacy law remedies and highlight, in particular, the status of the law in Ontario in relation to scenarios involving public disclosure of private facts.

Background

Understandably, the wonders and perils of our new 'cyber age' are often the subject of social and industry discussion. Many of us are concerned about privacy because we are, intentionally or otherwise, continuously eroding it. Our basic vital statistics and financial data in particular are transmitted, collected and stored on a daily basis. At the same time, with the advent of social media, many have become desensitized and quite willing to disseminate private-life details or, alternatively, trust various providers to safeguard these bits of intimate data or communications.

As is often the case however, things do go wrong and we are constantly, through media sources, being made aware of security breaches, data leakage and the often-resulting scandals.

While it would be unfair to suggest that the law is once-again playing 'catch up', it certainly has been forced to grapple with these new realities within older, existing frameworks - yet at the same time it must ponder new means by which to address the problems of the cyber age. In many instances, courts are presented with facts that indeed "cry out for a remedy."2

Statutory Remedies

Legal standards and remedies for breach of privacy currently exist in statute and, to some degree, common law.

The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) is a federal statute regulating the collection, use and disclosure of personal information from individuals by private sector organizations.3 It applies to organizations subject to federal jurisdiction as well as, by default, organizations in many provinces.4

PIPEDA, in effect, creates a statutory standard, the breaches of which may be investigated by the Privacy Commissioner and ultimately heard by the federal court with respect to claims for damages or other remedies.5 To date, the quantum of damages awards under PIPEDA have been relatively modest.

At the provincial level, Ontario's Personal Health Information Protection Act addresses the collection, use and disclosure of personal health information and allows for Superior Court proceedings for damages for "actual harm" suffered as a result of a contravention of that Act.6 Some provinces have similar legislation.7

Certain provinces have moreover enacted general privacy legislation that provides for a tort of invasion of privacy.8 In Quebec, the right to privacy is protected in its Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.9

While these provisions undoubtedly facilitate the prosecution of civil claims it does appear that the statutes themselves provide limited practical guidance on what actions amount to unlawful invasions of privacy. Courts are further left with the challenge of balancing, in some cases, notions of public interest and fair comment which remind us of principles long-litigated in the realm of defamation.

The Common Law

The 2012 decision of Jones v. Tsige has quickly become a seminal case in Ontario in relation to the concept of invasion of privacy at common law. In this instance, the plaintiff brought an action for invasion of privacy after it was learned that her ex-husband's new spouse had been continuously peering into Jones' banking records in her capacity as an employee at the material bank. Justice Sharpe, writing for the court, introduced the dilemma as follows:

The question of whether the common law should recognize a cause of action in tort for invasion of privacy has been debated for the past one hundred and twenty years. Aspects of privacy have long been protected by causes of action such as breach of confidence, defamation, breach of copyright, nuisance, and various property rights. Although the individual's privacy interest is a fundamental value underlying such claims, the recognition of a distinct right of action for breach of privacy remains uncertain.10

Justice Sharpe went on to adopt the helpful classification of American jurisprudence outlined by Professor Prosser in his famous California Law Review article of 1960. Specifically, Professor Prosser identified a four tort catalogue as follows: 1) intrusion upon the plaintiff's seclusion or solitude, or into his or her private affairs; 2) public disclosure of embarrassing private facts about the plaintiff; 3) publicity which places the plaintiff in false light in the public eye; and 4) appropriation, for the defendant's advantage, of the plaintiff's name or likeness.11

In Jones v. Tsige, it was recognized that Ontario had already accepted the existence of tort claims for the fourth catalogued item, namely appropriation of personality or likeness. The debate in Jones v. Tsige was whether or not, given the facts, the common law should recognize a new tort for 'intrusion upon seclusion' representing the first item in Prosser's classification.

In setting out his rationale for recognizing the tort of 'intrusion upon seclusion' Justice Sharpe noted that the advance of technology and its repercussions on personal information had left Ontario in a position whereby certain wrongs could be without remedy. He observed:

For over one hundred years, technological change has motivated the legal protection of the individual's right to privacy. In modern times, the pace of technological change has accelerated exponentially...The internet and digital technology have brought an enormous change in the way we communicate and in our capacity to capture, store and retrieve information. As the facts of this case indicate, routinely kept electronic data bases render our most personal financial information vulnerable. Sensitive information as to our health is similarly available, as are records of the books we have borrowed or bought, the movies we have rented or downloaded, where we have shopped, where we have travelled, and the nature of our communications by cell phone, e-mail or text message.

It is within the capacity of the common law to evolve to respond to the problem posed by the routine collection and aggregation of highly personal information that is readily accessible in electronic form. Technological change poses a novel threat to a right of privacy that has been protected for hundreds of years by the common law under various guises and that, since 1982 and the Charter, has been recognized as a right that is integral to our social and political order...In my view, the law of this province would be sadly deficient if we were required to send Jones away without a legal remedy.12

Although the Jones v. Tsige case has been correctly heralded as the leading case on the tort of invasion of privacy in Ontario, Justice Sharpe's decision forewarned of future challenges:

Foremost are claims for the protection of freedom of expression and freedom of the press...Suffice it to say, no right to privacy can be absolute and many claims for the protection of privacy will have to be reconciled with, and even yield to, such competing claims.13

These comments are particularly true when one considers the common law's struggle in Ontario, and perhaps elsewhere, with scenarios involving Prosser's second category: public disclosure of private facts.

Public Disclosure of Private Facts

Whereas the law of defamation has for many years sought to protect reputations in the case of the publication of false statements, the privacy law concept of 'public disclosure of private facts' is, to some degree, counterintuitive in that it involves the dissemination of true statements. The notion is that certain facts, even though true, are sufficiently intimate and private to be "nobody's business."14

Under Professor Prosser's formulation, the essential elements of the tort include: 1) sufficient publicity; 2) the facts must have been private; and 3) the disclosure must be offensive to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities.15 It is not difficult to see the hallmarks of this potential common law tort overlapping with existing concepts pertaining to defamation.

In Ontario, prior to Jones v. Tsige, hints of this were evident in the 2008 case of Nitsopoulos v. Wong.16 In Nitsopoulos, the plaintiffs complained that reporter Jan Wong surreptitiously posed as a maid at their home only to later describe her experiences in a series of articles entitled "Maid for a Month."17 It was alleged that Wong's writings identified the plaintiffs and the content presumably embarrassed them.

The conundrum was that the lawsuit had been commenced well beyond the limitation period pursuant to the Libel and Slander Act and, as a result, the action was based, not on defamation, but rather on torts of deceit and invasion of privacy. The Globe and Mail defendants sought to strike the claim arguing that it was a complaint in relation to reputation which could not be "dressed up" to evade the defences available in a defamation action.18

Justice Aston felt that the tort of invasion of privacy could perhaps stand alone. It was noted that the law of defamation had not "cornered the market" on damages for reputational injury.19 However, the Judge stopped short of stating that there was indeed a clear privacy-based tort for publication of what may well have been accurate facts (although it was recognized that a similar action had resulted in a damages award in the United Kingdom).20

At a minimum, Justice Aston was prepared to allow the case to proceed, with respect to privacy, insofar at least as it might involve reporter Wong's alleged intrusion and surveillance, i.e., an 'intrusion upon seclusion' claim that was later recognized more clearly in Jones v. Tsige.

Similarly, prior to the Jones v. Tsige decision, in Warman v. Grosvenor Justice Ratushny was faced with a case involving a series of offensive internet postings focusing on a federal civil servant.21 Although it is clear that most of the allegations could comfortably fit within the existing defamation rubric, complaints were made with respect to the public disclosure, on the internet, of the plaintiff's home address and geographical whereabouts. In this instance, Her Honour was of view that the damages claimed by the plaintiff for the tort of invasion of privacy were not "distinct from those flowing from the torts of defamation and assault."22 As a result, no entitlement to damages for any tort of invasion of privacy was found.

Subsequent to the Jones v. Tsige decision in Ontario, numerous cases have arisen which readily adopt the 'intrusion upon seclusion' terminology. Some involve facts which do indeed involve intentional or arguably reckless disclosure of private information.23

In Vertolli v. YouTube, the Ontario Small Claims Court was asked to grapple with allegations of 'intrusion upon seclusion' when a police officer claimed a ticketed driver had posted a videotape of material events on YouTube.24 Deputy Judge Klein found, as in Jones v. Tsige, that common law claims could stand outside of the statutory PIPEDA regime and, moreover, was of the view that the officer's claim did in fact disclose a reasonable cause of action which could proceed to trial.

In Action Auto Leasing v. Gray, the Ontario Small Claims Court was faced with an invasion of privacy claim raised by a defendant in a collections action.25 The related complaint, brought by self-represented defendants, involved a voicemail message left on a family member's telephone indicating that the defendant's lease was in default and the amount thereof. Deputy Justice Winny, with reference to the Jones v. Tsige decision, was prepared to recognize the tort of "public disclosure of embarrassing private facts", allocating $100 damages.26

In Craven v. Chmura, Justice Broad of the Ontario Superior Court was faced with a motion for costs in the aftermath of extremely tragic circumstances.27 The underlying facts involved estranged spouses, the murder of a child and the hostage taking of the child's mother. The estranged husband, as the suspect, was killed by police. The civil litigation involved what appears to have been a campaign by a relative of the deceased suspect to defame and humiliate the surviving spouse. The action was tried on the basis of libel and 'intrusion upon seclusion' before a jury. Although no details are provided, it does appear that certain actions of the defendant were deemed to stand alone from the defamation claims and the jury rendered verdict accordingly.

In a decision rendered on August 31, 2015, Justice Mew of the Ontario Superior Court further contributed to the dialogue by finding that the tort of 'public disclosure of private facts' does not currently exist in Ontario. In Chandra v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., the plaintiff claimed damages for invasion of privacy after the CBC disclosed embarrassing private facts in a documentary broadcast on CBC television.28 The plaintiff argued that it was open for the court to clearly extend the common law to recognize the tort of 'public disclosure of embarrassing private facts', however, Justice Mew noted that the Court of Appeal in Jones v. Tsige had, at present, confined the remedy for invasion of privacy to 'intrusion upon seclusion.' In his view, the law in Ontario did not include public disclosure of private facts:

There may well come a time when this court is presented with a case, the circumstances of which make it appropriate to consider further expansion of the law on invasion of privacy to incorporate more of the torts catalogued by Professor Prosser. This is not, however, such a case.29

Justice Mew recognized that to expand the tort of invasion of privacy to include 'public disclosure of private facts' would risk undermining the law of defamation.30  The Judge then examined whether the plaintiff could maintain a separate claim for 'intrusion upon seclusion' or whether the allegations were incorporated into the plaintiff's claim for defamation.31 Justice Mew stated:

The development of the law of defamation, and in particular, the efficacy of the defences of fair comment or responsible communication, would be significantly undermined if a plaintiff was able to avoid its effects by establishing in the alternative, on the basis of the same or related facts, a breach by the defendants of the plaintiff's right to be free from intrusion upon seclusion.32  Justice Mew commented on privacy, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press issues by holding that:

[T]he collection of otherwise private information for journalistic purposes, absent malice on the part of the defendant, is lawful. Because a successful claim for intrusion upon seclusion must be pinned on conduct that is unlawful, the plaintiff cannot advance a claim for intrusion upon seclusion in circumstances analogous to those in which a media defendant can establish fair comment or responsible communication.

Conversely, if the plaintiff can establish that the CBC defendants have invaded the plaintiff's private affairs or concerns without lawful justification, it follows that even media defendants would remain potentially liable to a claim of intrusion upon seclusion.33

Justice Mew concluded by determining that properly instructed, the question of the commission of the tort of 'intrusion upon seclusion' could be put to the jury.

The Chandra v. CBC case has been heralded as opening the door to adding privacy related claims to defamation lawsuits.34 It is nevertheless apparent that there remains an uneasy co-existence and Professor Prosser's catalogued tort of 'public disclosure of private facts' awaits a new case with more suitable facts.

Given the proliferation of privacy-based breaches and resulting claims, it is almost certain that an Ontario court will face a new request to consider this issue.35

Footnotes

 1 Jones v Tsige, 2012 ONCA 32 at para 1, 108 OR (3d) 241.

2 Ibid at para 69.

3 Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, SC 2000, c 5 [PIPEDA].

4 Ibid, s 4(1).

5 Ibid, s 16.

6 Personal Health Information Protection Act, SO 2004, c 3, Sch A, s 65(1).

7 Provinces with similar legislation include New Brunswick (Personal Health Information Privacy and Access Act, SNB 2009, c P-7.05); Newfoundland and Labrador (Personal Health Information Act, SNL 2008, c P-7.01); Nova Scotia (Personal Health Information Act, SNS 2010, c 41); Alberta (Health Information Act, RSA 2000, c H-5); Saskatchewan (The Health Information Protection Act, SS 1999, c H-0.021); Manitoba (The Personal Health Information Act, CCSM, c P33.5); Quebec (An Act Respecting the Protection of Personal Information in the Private Sector, CQLR, c P-39.1); and British Columbia (E-Health (Personal Health Information Access and Protection of Privacy) Act, SBC 2008, c 38 (for certain designated databases)). Note that these statutes do not permit damages for "actual harm" suffered.

8 Provinces which have enacted their own legislation are British Columbia (Privacy Act, RSBC 1996, c 373); Saskatchewan (The Privacy Act, RSS 1978, c P-24); Manitoba (The Privacy Act, CCSM 1987, c P-125); and Newfoundland and Labrador (The Privacy Act, RSNL 1990, c P-22).

9 Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, CQLR, c C-12, s 5. The Civil Code of Quebec, CQLR, c C-1991 also contains provisions relating to privacy under chapter III.

10 Supra note 1 at para 15.

11 William L. Prosser, "Privacy" (1960) 48:3 California Law Review 383 at 389.

12 Supra note 1 at paras 67-69.

13 Ibid at para 73.

14 Rodney A. Smolla & Melville B. Nimmer, Smolla & Nimmer on Freedom of Speech (Thomson Reuters West, 1996) at § 24:5.

15 Supra note 11 at 393, 394 and 396.

16 Nitsopoulos v Wong (2008), 298 DLR (4th) 265, 169 ACWS (3d) 74 (Ont Sup Ct) [Nitsopolous cited to DLR].

17 Ibid at para 4.

18 Ibid at para 5.

19 Ibid at para 15.

20 Ibid at para 21. The United Kingdom case referred to was Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd. [2008] EWHC 1777 (Eng. Q.B.).

21 Warman v Grosvenor (2008), 92 OR (3d) 663 at para 1, 172 ACWS (3d) 385 (Sup Ct).

22 Ibid at para 67.

23 The question that arises is whether any prospective tort of 'public disclosure of private facts' requires intentional acts or whether recklessness is sufficient. This may have relevance in particular to numerous class actions commenced and in some case certified relating to the allegedly negligent disclosure of personal data.

24 Vertolli v YouTube, 2012 CanLII 99832 at para 5 (Ont Sm Cl Ct).

25 Action Auto Leasing v Gray (2013), 226 ACWS (3d) 421 at para 12, 2013 CarswellOnt 2352 (Sm Cl Ct).

26 Ibid at para 14.

27 Craven v Chmura, 2015 ONSC 4843 at para 26, 2015 CarswellOnt 11937.

28 Chandra v Canadian Broadcasting Corp., 2015 ONSC 5303 at para 1, CarswellOnt 13283.

29 Ibid at para 44.

30 Ibid at para 49.

31 Ibid at para 50.

32 Ibid at para 58.

33 Ibid at paras 59 and 60.

34 Tali Folkins, "Court opens door to adding privacy claims to defamation lawsuits", Law Times (14 September, 2015) online: Law Times <http://www.lawtimesnews.com/>.

35 Indeed, just one month earlier, in July 2015, the Federal Court of Canada certified a class proceeding in John Doe v Her Majesty, 2015 FC 916, 2015 CarswellNat 3317. In that action, the plaintiffs pleaded the Crown publicly identified them as participants in the marijuana medical access program by sending letters in oversized envelopes through the mail system with the program's return address clearly depicted. Canada's Privacy Commissioner found, under the material federal legislation, that the complaints were well-founded. The class action plaintiffs sought to certify a class proceeding pleading a variety of causes of action including publicity given to private life. Recognizing that "this tort is truly novel in Canada" Justice Phelan held that like intrusion upon seclusion, it was a concept that should not be readily dismissed at an early stage of litigation. The class was certified.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Authors
Larry P. Reimer
 
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.