March

As part of the government's wider reforms to the immigration system, the Immigration Act 2014 (Commencement No.6) Order 2016 and the Immigration (Residential Accommodation) (Prescribed Requirements and Codes of Practice) (Amendment) Order 2016 are being brought into force on 1 February 2016 to ensure that only those with a legitimate right to be in the UK can rent property.
 
The scheme is intended to deter those without the right to live, work or study in the UK from staying here indefinitely. The scheme requires landlords, agents and householders renting out property to check, within 28 days before the start of a new tenancy, the immigration status of prospective tenants and other authorised occupiers aged 18 and over who will use the property as their only or main home to ascertain whether they have the right to be in the UK. With limited exceptions, this applies to both private and social housing and whether the tenancy|licence|subtenancy is written or oral.
 
Landlords who fail to check and are found to be letting property to, and anyone who sublets or allows lodging by, someone who has no right to stay in the UK could face financial penalties of up to £3,000 per tenant.

An Alberta man who wanted to make his home safer by installing an alarm system was appalled to discover the security company sent a man with a lengthy criminal record.
 
The alarm installer would later be investigated for allegedly stealing his credit card information and ID while in his home. "It's unbelievable that somebody that's supposed to be there to make life more secure took advantage of their position and stole my identity," said Gary Brenner.
 
Go Public's investigation found that only four provinces (B.C., Quebec, New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador)  require criminal record checks on employees or contractors in the home security industry.
 
Richard McMullen, president of the Canadian Security Association, says there is a misconception that everyone in home security installation would have regular criminal checks. That requirement varies from location to location.

The Federal Court recently underscored the importance of compliance with the requirements of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) in a decision that applies only to federal works and undertakings subject to the Act.

In Cote v. Day & Ross, 2015 FC 1283, Justice Harrington affirmed that: employers governed by PIPEDA must respond to requests by employees for their personal information file within 30 days, reasons must be provided when refusing to provide full and complete information in response to a request, a personal information file may also include third-party information about an employee, and that the trend of awarding nominal damages for breach is ongoing.

Companies should continue to be alert to their obligations under PIPEDA, and the decision in Cote emphasizes the importance of reviewing employee privacy policies and practices to ensure that access requests are addressed in a responsive and timely manner.