Court File No. T-1779-18

Is the operation of Google’s search engine excluded from the application of Part 1 of PIPEDA by virtue of paragraph 4(2)(c) of PIPEDA because it involves the collection, use or disclosure of personal information for journalistic purposes and for no other purpose? CIPPIC submits that the answer to the first question is “Yes” and the answer to the second question is “No”. [...] PIPEDA is quasi- constitutional in nature and has a close nexus to the rights enshrined in the Charter, including the right to privacy and the values of autonomy, dignity, and informational self- 18 determination that underpin it. [...] 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 would provide the appropriate remedy, rendering the 59 impugned provisions of no force or effect to the extent of the inconsistency. [...] In short, the modern approach to statutory interpretation does not permit a Court to interpret the scope of a provision granting jurisdiction more narrowly than the legislature intended simply to preclude the possibility that hypothetical constitutional or policy issues could eventually arise in relation to entirely different provisions of the Act. [...] The fact that constitutional or policy issues may arise in the context of specific obligations under PIPEDA does not entitle the Court to restrict the application of the entire statutory scheme.