Blog

Sep 19, 2023

PIPEDA Findings #2022

PIPEDA Findings # 2022-006 July 27, 2022 The complainant, a truck driver employed by Trimac Transportation Services Inc. (“Trimac”), claimed the organization installed a dash camera into his vehicle

PIPEDA Findings # 2022-006

July 27, 2022

The complainant, a truck driver employed by Trimac Transportation Services Inc. (“Trimac”), claimed the organization installed a dash camera into his vehicle that continuously recorded audio and video without his consent. The complainant was particularly concerned with the organization’s recording of audio.

Our investigation focused on whether Trimac’s purpose for collection and use of drivers’ personal information via a dash camera system’s (“the System”) audio functionality, which was active whenever the truck was on, even when the driver was off-duty and not driving, was appropriate in the circumstances. We found that the System was not implemented for an appropriate purpose, in the circumstances. We accepted that Trimac had a legitimate need for implementing the System, including to ensure road safety, and that the System was likely to be effective in achieving those objectives. However, Trimac could have achieved the same ends in a less privacy intrusive way. Further, the loss of privacy resulting from Trimac’s implementation of the System was not proportional to the benefits Trimac hoped to gain. We consequently recommended that Trimac: (i) limit the audio functionality capabilities of the System to be active only when a driver is on-duty and/or driving; and (ii) technologically limit access to the personal information captured by the System to only those employees who “need to know” for Trimac’s purposes. Trimac agreed to implement all our recommendations such that we find this aspect of the complaint to be well-founded and conditionally resolved.

Our investigation also examined whether Trimac required the consent of its employees to collect their personal information in the circumstances. We found that Trimac could not, initially, rely on the exception to consent provided for in section 7.3 (relating to employment relationships) of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (“PIPEDA” or ‘the Act’) in that it was not initially transparent about its collection and use of personal information for disciplinary purposes, as required by section 7.3. However, owing to remedial actions taken to explain these purposes to employees, we found that Trimac can now rely on this exception to consent. We therefore find this aspect of the complaint to be well-founded and resolved.

“The main issue is that the company does not appear to have informed its employees that the data from the truck mounted cameras may be collected, used and disclosed for disciplinary purposes, or for purposes of terminating the employment relationship. We therefore recommend that the company develop and circulate a policy, or notice to the employees that clearly states the uses for the audio and video data, including “disciplinary purposes and for terminating the employment relationship.” [Our emphasis]

The System falls into hibernation mode when the truck’s ignition is turned off.

Return to footnote 1

For instance, speeding, lane departures, potential forward collisions.

Return to footnote 2

For instance, see PIPEDA Case Summary #2006-351. In this case, we found that a telecommunications company had a legitimate need to collect location information of its technicians, via GPS in their assigned vehicles, for substantially similar purposes of asset management, employee management and performance management.

Return to footnote 3