Landlord Photographing Tenants' Premises Without Consent Contravenes PIPEDA

A tenant (T) received prior notice from his apartment building's property management company (PM Co) that representatives would be entering his apartment as part of a building inspection. One day while T was at home, a representative, together with two property insurance inspectors, entered his apartment and began taking digital photographs of each room. PM Co's notice had not mentioned that the apartment would be photographed. T objected, claiming that the photographs constituted a collection of the tenant's personal information without consent, and asked that this not occur again, and that the photos be destroyed. The building owner had retained PM Co to gather the photographic information both for insurance purposes and to assist in obtaining mortgage financing. All of the original photographs were destroyed once the report was completed. Initially, T filed a complaint with the provincial rental housing tribunal. PM Co then agreed to apologize to the tenant, destroy the photos, and review its policies to ensure compliance with the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). Although T insisted that PM Co inform other tenants that their apartments had also been photographed, it refused, claiming that there was no evidence of any improper use or collection of tenants' personal information. T filed a complaint with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. The Assistant Privacy Commissioner found that even though the photos were taken for property insurance purposes only, those photographs did contain information of a personal nature: "For example, ... while the purpose of a particular photograph might be to show the state of the walls or the condition of a kitchen or bathroom of a certain unit, it also revealed information about the unit dweller and his or her standard of living. It might show whether they are tidy or not, whether they can afford expensive media equipment or not, whether they love music, or art, or cooking." The Assistant Privacy Commissioner recommended that other affected tenants be notified that their apartments had been photographed, tell them how their photographs would be safeguarded, and be given other relevant information about the company's privacy policies. Another recommendation was that its notices of entry be revised to explain why tenants' apartments were being accessed, that their units would be photographed, and to obtain their prior consent. Not all of the recommendations have been followed, and the Assistant Privacy Commissioner will continue to pursue the matter. For the report of the Assistant Privacy Commissioner (entitled "Commissioner's Findings" and issued November 1, 2006), visit: http://www.privcom.gc.ca/cf-dc/2006/349_20060824_e.asp Summary by: Andrei Edwards