Schoal Point Strata Council (Office of the Information & Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia)

Residents of the strata corporation complained about excessive video surveillance in the building.  The adjudicator said that, under BC’s Personal Information Protection Act (“PIPA”), 

• Video surveillance was only permitted based upon a “reasonable person standard”  (ie “for purposes that a reasonable person would consider appropriate”). So, video surveillance could be collected and used only for such reasonable purposes;
• Video surveillance was only permitted as necessary to address clear or demonstrated problems; and
• Video surveillance was only permitted with proper disclosure of the surveillance and its purposes. 

The adjudicator therefore held as follows: 

1. Video surveillance on the exterior doors and parkade was acceptable (for purposes of preventing unauthorized entry, theft or the threat to personal safety or damage to property).
2. Video surveillance in the pool area and outside the fitness room had not been demonstrated to be necessary.  Therefore, those cameras had to be disabled.  However, video surveillance in those areas could be restored “in the event that there was sufficient new evidence of threats of unauthorized entry, theft or the threat to personal safety or damage to property or other cases that would meet the reasonable person test outlined in this order”. 
3. Video surveillance could not be used for strata council by-law enforcement. 
4. Video surveillance could not be used to provide access to residential units via their television cable system. 
5. The video recordings were to be reviewed only in the event of a complaint or evidence of unauthorized entry, theft or threat of personal safety or damage to property.  Also, access to the recordings was to be restricted to security staff and a few designated strata council officials. 
6. The strata council was ordered to provide (to the adjudicator) a description of the location, prominence and wording of its signs posted to notify individuals of video surveillance. 
7. The strata council was ordered to provide (to the adjudicator) a list of the employees and strata council officials, by title, who have access to the video surveillance system.

The adjudicator also recommended that the strata council consider passing a by-law to authorize the collection of personal information by video surveillance (in accordance with Section 12(1)(h) of PIPA).  In addition to signs, such a by-law would serve to confirm that the strata council had obtained the explicit or implicit consent of individuals whose images were being collected on the video surveillance system.