An Act to enact the Protecting Privacy and Consumer Data Act, to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and to make amendments to other Acts

How it changed on the way

Only laws are compared, introduced against passed.

How precisely it is written

vagueChallenging the law: EasyDisputing a charge: Easy

The bill relies heavily on subjective reasonableness tests and undefined concepts of sensitivity and appropriateness rather than fixed rules or numeric thresholds. Defined terms exist for technical concepts but do not constrain the core obligations.

Open to argument

• “purposes that a reasonable person would consider appropriate in the circumstances”

  This standard is repeated in sections 5, 12(1) and 12(2) and invites case-by-case argument over what counts as appropriate.

• “the sensitivity of the personal information”

  Section 12(2)(a) lists sensitivity as a factor without defining it or providing objective criteria.

• “whether there are less intrusive means of achieving those purposes at a comparable cost and with comparable benefits”

  Section 12(2)(d) requires balancing of vague comparative judgments with no fixed test.

• “it is appropriate to rely on an individual’s implied consent, taking into account the reasonable expectations of the individual and the sensitivity of the personal information”

  Section on form of consent uses multiple subjective layers that resist quick application.

Clear-cut

• “anonymize means to irreversibly and permanently modify personal information to ensure that there is no reasonably foreseeable risk in the circumstances that an individual can be identified from the information, whether directly or indirectly, by any means”

  This supplies a clear, technical definition that can be applied without further discretion.

• “child means an individual who is under 18 years of age”

  Provides an objective age cutoff.

• “dispose means to permanently and irreversibly delete personal information or to anonymize it”

  Gives a binary, verifiable action rather than a judgment call.

Discretion. Extensive power is left to the Commission, Commissioner and regulations to set codes of practice, data mobility frameworks, penalties up to prescribed maxima, and factors for investigations under sections 76-84, 92-96, 113-114 and 139-142.

Challenging the law itself. The repeated 'reasonable person' and 'appropriate in the circumstances' tests create vagueness that could be challenged under Charter s. 7 liberty and s. 2(b) expression interests for overbreadth and lack of fair notice.

Disputing a charge under it. An organization accused of breaching sections 12 or 15 can readily dispute whether its purposes or consent practices met the subjective reasonable-person standard, prolonging litigation.

Read by a language model from the as introduced text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.