In the recent decision and order P2020-03 Case File Number 003980, dated April 21 2020, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) found law firm Gowling WLG guilty of a privacy offence by obtaining a credit report of an opposing litigant in violation of the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA). The Gowlings lawyer responsible for this serious offence is Taryn Burnett.
This decision is unrelated to the Carbone case in progress against Taryn Burnett, Megan McMahon and Gowlings, on which this blog reports, which also involves Burnett and Gowlings' unlawful collection of credit report information. See previous blog posts here, here, here, and here regarding the privacy violation, related common law claim of intrusion upon seclusion, and status information.
Credit reports contain confidential and sensitive credit and financial information and it is a serious offence for a person or organization to unreasonably collect or use this information.
In the P2020-03 - Case File Number 003980 decision against Gowlings, the OIPC stated in part:
[para 151] Taking all of the foregoing circumstances into account, and the arguments of the parties, I find that the Organization’s collection of the credit report was not reasonable for the purposes of a legal proceeding, and that it did not have authority to collect the Complainant’s personal information in the credit report without consent under section 14(d).
...
[para 163] ...[C]ollecting personal information from a reporting agency outside of the circumstances enumerated in section 44 of the CPA is prohibited and constitutes an offence. As I have found that the credit report was obtained in circumstances in which this was not permissible under the CPA, and would constitute an offence, it seems obvious to me that the information was not collected to a reasonable extent.[para 164] Therefore I find that the Organization collected the Complainant’s personal information in contravention of section 11(2).[para 165] Since the Organization collected the Complainant’s personal information beyond a reasonable extent, it follows that any subsequent uses and disclosures were also beyond a reasonable extent. I find that the Organization used and disclosed the Complainant’s personal information in contravention of sections 16(2) and 19(2).
The lengthy decision also makes clear it rejected Gowlings' purported reason for obtaining the opposing litigant's credit report.
The facts of the privacy violation in the case discussed above and the unrelated Carbone case in progress against the defendants Burnett and Gowlings are strikingly similar: Burnett and Gowlings unreasonably obtained the credit reports of both opposing litigants in contravention of privacy regulation and then fabricated reasons for obtaining them.
It is further concerning that (at this time) Taryn Burnett practices privacy law and was well aware that by unreasonably pulling the credit reports of the opposing litigants she was committing serious offences under PIPA and breaking the law.
Given that Burnett and Gowlings have unreasonably collected credit information of multiple opposing litigants in unrelated cases, it may be prudent for any concerned litigant with Burnett and Gowlings on the opposing side to obtain a copy of his or her credit report to see if Gowlings' name appears in the "Inquiries" section.
If you suspect that Taryn Burnett and Gowlings, or any other lawyer or law firm, have unreasonably obtained your credit report, you may wish to file a complaint with the OIPC here. You do not need a lawyer to make a complaint to the OIPC. You may also wish to pursue an intrusion upon seclusion claim in court, for which you should seek legal advice from an ethical lawyer.
