Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Judicial review sought after the Privacy Commissioner declined to investigate under PIPEDA due to jurisdiction limits

• The applicant’s notice of application failed to meet procedural requirements under Rule 301 of the Federal Courts Rules

• The court found that most of the applicant’s grounds were either procedurally deficient or legally untenable

• A claim related to breach of Paralegal Rules of Conduct was dismissed outright due to lack of jurisdiction

• The applicant’s argument on statutory interpretation of “commercial activity” under PIPEDA was allowed to proceed

• Declaratory relief sought was ruled premature and beyond the court’s jurisdiction at this stage

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and complaint history

The applicant, Chandandeep Sharma, is a former employee of a Tim Hortons franchise in Ontario operated by 1320105 Ontario Inc. Following a labour dispute, he requested personal information from Push Operations, a third-party HR service provider used by his employer. When his request was denied, he initially filed a complaint with the British Columbia Privacy Commissioner. That office informed him that he needed to request the information directly from his employer, which he did through legal counsel. After that request was denied, Sharma filed a new complaint with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA).

The OPC declined to investigate the complaint, stating it had no jurisdiction because PIPEDA applies only to federally regulated workplaces when it comes to employee information. Sharma then brought a judicial review application challenging this decision.

Application and motion to strike

The Privacy Commissioner brought a motion to strike the application, arguing that it failed to comply with Rule 301 of the Federal Courts Rules, did not disclose a reasonable cause of action, and sought relief outside the court’s jurisdiction. The applicant’s notice of application included four grounds: violation of PIPEDA by the employer and its service provider, breach of the Paralegal Rules of Conduct, questions about federal jurisdiction, and an unreasonable decision by the OPC.

Court's analysis

The court found that three of the four grounds—PIPEDA violation, jurisdictional authority, and unreasonable decision—were insufficiently stated under Rule 301 and thus were procedurally non-compliant. The fourth ground, alleging a breach of Paralegal Rules of Conduct, was struck on substantive grounds because such matters fall outside the jurisdiction of both the OPC and the court.

However, the court acknowledged that the applicant's argument regarding the statutory interpretation of “commercial activity” under section 4(1)(a) of PIPEDA raised a potentially justiciable issue. While not clearly presented in the original application, the argument was sufficiently developed in the applicant’s submissions in response to the motion to strike. The court concluded this issue was not doomed to fail and allowed the applicant to amend his application to pursue that argument.

Outcome and relief

The application was struck in its entirety, but the applicant was granted leave to file a fresh and amended notice of application. The amended filing must comply with Rule 301 and exclude any reference to paralegal conduct or declaratory relief that PIPEDA had been violated, as those aspects were beyond the court’s jurisdiction at this stage.

Costs and damages

The court made no order as to costs, citing divided success in the motion. No damages were awarded.