Successfully acted on behalf of Canadian Pacific Railway before the Federal Court of Canada against a filed complaint with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada pursuant to the Personal Information and Electronic Documents Act over the installation of six digital video recording surveillance cameras in the mechanical facility area.
The case was cited by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada as a ''germinal decision'' of Canadian privacy jurisprudence. This decision is a very significant interpretation of PIPEDA as it addresses a number of questions: (i) whether PIPEDA protects unionized employees, (ii) whether a hearing at the Court is essentially a trial de novo, (iii) the meaning of "except where inappropriate" in Principle 3, (iv) the interpretation of the consent exception contained in section 9(1)(b) of PIPEDA, and (v) what factors are to be considered in determining whether video surveillance is reasonable.
Eastmond v. Canadian Pacific Railway, 2004 FC 852