Forest c. Bell, 2024 QCCAI 202
Facts
In November 2021, Forest, the petitioner, subscribed to various services from Bell, the respondent, including residential phone services. At that time, he was informed that only his first initial and last name, "Forest, S.," would be listed in the directory alongside his phone number. The transaction summary confirmed this under the "Directory listing" section.
On March 28, 2023, Forest discovered that his full name, address, and phone number were publicly displayed on the website Canada411.ca. He contacted Bell's customer service, expressing his lack of consent for this disclosure and requesting that his personal information stop being shared with third parties, such as the Yellow Pages. Forest also highlighted a security concern related to his profession, stressing that the public dissemination of his personal details posed a risk.
As he still had not received satisfaction regarding his requests, on April 28, 2023, Forest submitted a request for a review of the disagreement to the Commission d'accès à l'information (Commission). In addition to his proceedings before the Commission, Forest also filed a claim before the Small Claims Division of the Court of Québec, seeking similar injunctive relief to that requested before the Commission, along with a monetary claim for damages.
Decision
The Commission ruled that it had exclusive jurisdiction to address Forest's request for a review of the disagreement, despite the parallel proceedings in the Court of Québec.
Citing section 134.2 of the Act respecting Access to documents held by public bodies and the Protection of personal information (Access Act), the Commission emphasized that it alone had the authority to decide on matters related to disputes over personal information under the Act respecting the protection of personal information in the private sector (Private Sector Act).
The Commission dismissed Bell's argument of lis pendens, noting that it retained the authority to examine and resolve Forest's request, regardless of the ongoing court proceedings. The Commission proceeded to review Forest's complaint and concluded that Bell had complied with his original request by ensuring that only "Forest, S." and his phone number would appear in the directory.
Key Takeaway
The Commission holds exclusive jurisdiction over disputes concerning personal information under the Private Sector Act, even if similar issues are being addressed in other courts. Claims of lis pendens do not prevent the Commission from ruling on matters that fall within its jurisdiction.
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.
