• FR
  • Inform me about new class actions

    • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

    Coming soon

    Notice about our registration form
    Completing the form does not guarantee you any compensation

    Please note that completing this form does not guarantee you any compensation.

    Indeed, it will ultimately be up to the court to decide on the merits of the class action and the terms of compensation. In addition, the eligibility criteria to receive compensation could be modified by the court, which could result in your exclusion from the class action.

    Please also note that we will not conduct a detailed analysis of each individual case until there is a final judgment or settlement in the file. Completing this form does not mean that you are eligible.

    We will inform the people who have registered of any final outcome in the class action. We will communicate with them by email. We invite you to notify us of any changes to your email address.

    We also invite you to keep informed through our website which we will update regularly.

    We thank you for your interest in this class action.

    Continue

    Ongoing public interest litigation

    Intervention of the CIPPIC in a Reference before the Federal Court

    Reference regarding PIPEDA

    Trudel Johnston & Lespérance is proud to represent the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic pro bono in an important Federal Court Reference question.

    The Reference, FC File No T-1779-18, may have wide-ranging impacts on the scope of legal protection offered by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), Canada’s primary federal privacy law.

    PIPEDA applies to the collection, use and disclosure of personal information carried out in the course of “commercial activity”. The arguments advanced in this Reference could exclude key activities of platforms such as Google and Facebook from federal privacy protection on the basis that their activities are not “commercial” in nature. CIPPIC takes the position that PIPEDA was always intended to regulate these aspects of the digital economy, particularly where the mass collection and monetization of user-generated data are central to an entity’s business model.

    The reference also examines whether a search engine’s activities are exclusively “journalistic” in nature, as PIPEDA does not apply to data processing conducted exclusively for journalistic purposes. CIPPIC argues that while the application of PIPEDA to platforms can sometimes raise concerns related to freedom of expression and the press, these challenges should not be addressed through the law’s jurisdictional provision. Instead, other aspects of the legislation and the Charter offer more appropriate and tailored protections for these important rights. CIPPIC therefore argues that Parliament did not intend to categorically exclude services like search engines from PIPEDA, and that such an interpretation would frustrate its intention to protect privacy in the digital age.

    The Federal Court heard this case on January 26th and 27th and will render its decision in the coming months.

    Procedures and judgments

    Judgments
    Procedures