Legally Speaking - July 2007 (409)
News and Publications » Publications » Legally Speaking » Legally Speaking - July 2007 (409)
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Search Legally Speaking:
Legally Speaking (409, July 2007)


Number 409, July 2007

A Recent Privacy Complaint

A recent privacy case highlights the need to obtain consent before using an individual’s personal information. The Privacy Commissioner of Canada recently found that a licensee, in an advertisement, breached the federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) by using personal information about two other REALTORS® without their consent.(1)

What is PIPEDA?
PIPEDA is substantially similar to BC’s Personal Information Protection Act, which requires provincially regulated organizations, such as brokerages, to protect personal information. PIPEDA protects personal information collected, used or disclosed by federally regulated entities in the private sector. Before using someone else’s personal information, both statutes require an organization’s representatives to first obtain that person’s consent.

PIPEDA defines personal information, in part, as information about an identifiable individual, which includes any factual or subjective information about that individual (e.g., name, address, birth date, income, gender, religion, education, employment, etc.).(2) Apart from a few exceptions, PIPEDA prohibits using or disclosing this information without informed consent.(3)

The case
A representative wanted to advertise himself as a top-ranked REALTOR®. As a member of a real estate board, the licensee used the Multiple Listing Service® (MLS®) to get information about the listings and sales of other salespersons. Although the MLS® provided some data on the sales activities of other REALTORS®, it couldn’t rank representatives against one another. To rank the other REALTORS®, the licensee bought a report from an organization that sold real estate statistics. The report apparently ranked representatives by the number of units sold and dollar value. It contained each representative’s name, franchise name, number of units sold, each unit’s value, average time on the market and average sales price per representative.

Using the MLS® information and the ranking report as sources, the representative created an advertisement for his services, in which he ranked the top five REALTORS® in the area and listed the number of houses each had sold. Among the five, the licensee ranked himself first.

Two licensees named in the ad, ranked third and fifth, complained to the Commissioner that they hadn’t consented to their personal information being used.

According to the evidence, members of the real estate board signed an agreement to use the MLS® system. To the extent that MLS® information is associated with an individual, the board’s privacy policy considered it personal information, which, as much as possible, should be collected directly from the relevant listing broker or salesperson. Under the agreement with the board, personal information included the user’s name, phone number, business address and employer.

The organization that prepared the statistical report obtained its information partly from the MLS® database, but didn’t have a contractual relationship with the real estate board.

The licensee argued, in part, that since the MLS® information was available to users of the MLS® and the other organization from which he bought the statistics, the data shouldn’t be considered personal. In the representative’s view, real estate licensees provide business services and their business performance becomes public information.

The licensee’s argument was rejected by the Commissioner, who held that the licensee disclosed the other representatives’ personal information without their consent. Merely by using the MLS®, the other licensees didn’t consent to the use of their personal information (that is, information about their respective sales records) in their competitor’s ad. The case summary doesn’t say what remedy, if any, the Commissioner ordered, though PIPEDA contains various penalty provisions and a complainant may claim damages against a wrongdoer in the Federal Court of Canada.

Mike Mangan
B.A., LL.B.

  1. PIPEDA Case Summary #303, Real estate broker publishes names of top five sales representatives in a city, May 31, 2005.
  2. PIPEDA, s. 2 (definition of “personal information”) and Questions and Answers regarding the application of PIPEDA, Alberta and British Columbia's Personal Information Protection Acts (PIPAs). Office of the Privacy Commissioner, Ottawa. Last modified: November 5, 2004.
  3. PIPEDA, Sch. 1, Principle 4.3.
Back issues of Legally Speaking are available to REALTORS® on BCREA's REALTOR Link® homepage. Subscribers who are not REALTORS®, and who wish to see back issues, should contact BCREA by email at [email protected], or by phone at 604.742.2784.
Legally Speaking is published monthly by email and bimonthly in print by the British Columbia Real Estate Association, and funded in part by The Real Estate Foundation of British Columbia. Real estate boards, real estate associations and REALTORS® may reprint this content, provided that credit is given to BCREA by including the following statement: "Copyright British Columbia Real Estate Association. Reprinted with permission." BCREA makes no guarantees as to the accuracy or completeness of this information.
Copyright © British Columbia Real Estate Association
1420 – 701 Georgia Street West
PO Box 10123, Pacific Centre
Vancouver, BC  V7Y 1C6
Phone 604.683.7702
Fax 604.683.8601
[email protected]
This message is intended for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged or confidential information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. For BCREA's Privacy Policy, visit