A case of PIPEDA- Mirza Nammo Vs. TransUnion of Canada Inc.

We have discussed a legislative history of PIPEDA in short in our first article and we are well aware that this piece of legislature came into force in several parts but over all the entire act came into force by 2004. 

Picture Credit- http://www.legalserviceindia.com/

Almost after 10 years of its soul the first case in the history of PIPEDA came in the year of 2010. The facts of the case are as follows-

  1. TransUnion is a credit rating agency of Canada and Mr. Nammo had applied for a loan to Royal Bank of Canada and next day the Bank advises him that they cannot grant him the loan as he has Bad Credit. On inquiry he came to know that this information had been provided to the Bank by TransUnion. 
  1. The Bank relying upon the finding of the TransUnion rejected his application stating an erroneously reason that “the Applicant had Bad Credit”. Subsequently, the Applicant came to know that the Company had provided wrong information to the Bank and that information belongs to some other person. On the refusal the Applicant asked the company to rectify its finding but he failed to get it rectified.
  1. Thereafter, he approached the Personal Information Commissioner (for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred to as ‘PCC’).  
  1. The PCC’s findings were clear that TransUnion had violated the Fair Information Principle enshrined under the Schedule 1 of PIPEDA. 

Legal Reasonings:

  1. The PCC found that the TransUnion has violated Principle No. 6 mentioned under section 4.6 (Accuracy) of the PIPEDA. An Organisation cannot escape from the responsibility of compliance with the Accuracy principle. 
  1. The court relied and cited the precedent of Ontario Superior Court Haskett Vs. Fax Canada Inc. et.al 2003  quoting ‘Credit is an integral part of everyday life in today’s society. As credit is so ubiquitous, there is nothing exceptional about consumer reliance on credit reporters to carry out their function not only honestly, but accurately, with skill and diligence and in accordance with statutory obligations” (refer- https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2003/2003canlii32896/2003canlii32896.html).
  1. The court emphasised enough on the part of TransUnion that it is a clear case of Mistake wherein TransUnion not only provided the wrong information to the Bank but also did not provide the updated credit information on the discovery of the mistake.

Remedies:

  1. Court ordered the organization to adopt correct practices.
  2. The Court Awarded the Damages of $5,000 along with the cost.

(Refer to case of Mirza Nammo Vs. TransUnion of Canada Inc. FC 1284.)