The applicants brought a constitutional application challenging PIPEDA provisions permitting voluntary disclosure of subscriber information to government institutions without prior judicial authorization and related veto provisions limiting disclosure to affected individuals.
They alleged infringements of Charter ss. 8, 7, and 2(b), arguing the scheme lacked oversight, accountability, and transparency.
The court held it was bound by appellate authority that PIPEDA does not itself confer search or seizure powers, so s. 8 was not engaged on this record, and further held the s. 7 claim was a repackaging of the s. 8 arguments.
The court also found no s. 2(b) breach because the veto provisions are discretionary, incorporate balancing, and did not substantially impede meaningful public discussion.
