Free IAPP CIPP-C Practice Exam with Questions & Answers | Set: 2

Health information privacy laws in Canada exhibit significant variations across different provinces, particularly in terms of how consent is defined and the ways in which consent requirements are addressed. Each province and territory has its own health information legislation that might define and handle consent differently, reflecting varying approaches to the management and protection of personal health information. This variability can affect how health information is collected, used, and disclosed across different jurisdictions. Examples include the Health Information Act in Alberta and the Personal Health Information Protection Act in Ontario, each with its own specific stipulations regarding consent. This diversity in legislation across provinces underscores the true statement in Option C.

Under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) and similar provincial privacy laws, there are certain circumstances where the collection of personal information without explicit consent is permitted. One such circumstance is when obtaining timely consent is impractical, and the collection of the information is clearly in the interests of the individual. This could occur in emergency situations where the individual's health or safety is at stake, or where immediate action is required for the individual's benefit, and consent cannot be obtained in a timely manner. Thus, the correct answer is A.

British Columbia's Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) specifically differentiates between regular personal information and employee-related or work-product information. BC's PIPA applies to all private sector organizations within the province and includes provisions that treat employee personal information somewhat differently than other types of personal information. This act allows for the collection, use, and disclosure of employee personal information without consent when it is reasonable for the purposes of establishing, managing, or terminating an employment relationship. This distinction is significant as it acknowledges the unique nature of employee information in the workplace context, differentiating it from other personal information that typically requires consent for similar activities under more general privacy laws.

Oversight authorities generally allow various forms of consent including implied consent, verbal consent, and written consent specific to the purpose for which the information is collected. However, they do not typically accept a "general consent" that covers all activities associated with the personal information. Consent must be specific and informed, clearly relating to the particular context in which personal information is to be used or disclosed. General consent fails to meet the specificity required under privacy laws like PIPEDA, which necessitates that consent be explicit for particularly sensitive information or whenever there is a significant change in the use of the information.

When conducting surveys that collect personal information, it is crucial to protect the privacy of the respondents. The best practice, according to CIPP/C guidelines, is to collect results anonymously whenever possible1. This can be achieved by using pseudonyms to identify employees, which aligns with the option A. This method allows the company to analyze the data without exposing the personal identities of the employees.

Using a survey tool located in Canada (option B) may not necessarily protect the personal information unless the tool itself has robust privacy features that comply with Canadian privacy laws. Encryption (option C) is a strong method to secure data but does not address the issue of anonymity in the data collection process. Adjusting the survey questions to not collect identifying information (option D) could potentially undermine the purpose of the DEI initiatives, as some demographic information may be necessary for analysis.

The International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP) provides a global standard for privacy laws, regulations, and frameworks, which includes the protection of personal information in surveys. The CIPP/C certification ensures that professionals understand these principles and practices within the Canadian context2. The guidelines suggest that when personal information is collected, it should be done in a way that respects the privacy of individuals, which includes minimizing the risk of identification3.

In conclusion, using pseudonyms is the best solution among the given options to protect personal information while still allowing the company to invest in DEI initiatives and gather the necessary data for analysis. This approach is in line with the principles-based framework and knowledge base in information privacy as outlined by the CIPP/C certification program2.

According to the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Model Code, which forms part of the principles under PIPEDA, when errors in personal information are identified by the individual to whom the data pertains, the organization is required to amend the information as necessary to correct the inaccuracies. This obligation ensures that personal information held by an organization is accurate, complete, and up-to-date, particularly when it is used to make decisions about the individual. Therefore, the real estate firm should amend any information that the woman identifies as erroneous, as stated in option B. This approach ensures compliance with the accuracy principle of the CSA Model Code.

For a provincial law to be considered substantially similar to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), it must consist of consistency with the ten privacy principles, an independent oversight body, and a redress mechanism. This criterion is set by the federal government to ensure that provincial privacy laws provide a comparable level of protection as PIPEDA. If a provincial privacy law meets these standards, it is declared substantially similar, which allows it to supersede PIPEDA within that province for private sector data handling. This framework helps to maintain a uniform standard of privacy protection across Canada while allowing for regional adaptations.

Under the Alberta Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA), when a real risk of significant harm (RROSH) from a data breach has been determined, the organization must notify both the individuals affected and the Privacy Commissioner of Alberta. The law requires that notifications include the description of the personal information involved in the breach, the number of individuals affected, and the steps taken to reduce or mitigate harm. However, a description of the steps the organization will take to notify affected individuals is part of the process following the assessment and initial report, not an immediate requirement when notifying the Commissioner of the RROSH itself.

Alberta's Health Information Act (HIA) is not considered substantially similar to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). While the HIA governs the collection, use, and disclosure of health information specifically within Alberta, it is structured differently and has distinct provisions compared to PIPEDA, which is a federal privacy law applicable to the private sector across all provinces and territories in Canada, except for those areas where provincial privacy laws have been deemed substantially similar. The other provincial acts listed (from New Brunswick, Ontario, and Nova Scotia) are recognized by the federal government as being substantially similar to PIPEDA, meaning they provide similar protections and can supersede PIPEDA within their respective jurisdictions for the handling of health information.

Under the federal Privacy Act, which governs how federal public-sector organizations manage personal information, the law specifies conditions under which personal information may be collected. These include when the collection directly relates to and is necessary for an operating program or activity of the institution (Option A), when it is for the purposes of law enforcement (Option B), or when it is expressly authorized under another act (Option C). However, the Privacy Act does not include a general provision that allows for the collection of personal information based solely on consent (Option D). The Act is designed to limit the collection of personal information to what is strictly necessary for government functions, without relying on the consent of the individual as a basis for collection. Therefore, Option D is the correct answer as it is not a requirement under the federal Privacy Act.