Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The Act covers the following subjects relating to personal health information in the province of Ontario: Section 1: Interpretation and Application sets out of the purpose of the Act. It defines key terms used throughout the Act, such as "health information custodian" and "health information agent".
After years of advocacy, a Personal Health Information Protection Act (PHIPA) was enacted in 2004. This health privacy law applied to all individuals and organizations involved in the delivery of health care services – both public and private sectors – to ensure the protection of personal health information of patients.
An Act to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting the personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in certain circumstances, by providing for the use of electronic means to communicate or record information or transactions, and by amending the Canada Evidence Act, the Statutory Instruments Act and the Statute Revision Act
The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act ("PIPEDA") governs the topic of data privacy, and how private-sector companies can collect, use and disclose personal information. The Act also contains various provisions to facilitate the use of electronic documents.
Personal Health Information Protection Act; Police Services Act (Ontario) Protecting a Sustainable Public Sector for Future Generations Act, 2019; Protecting Ontario Elections Act, 2021; Protecting Tenants and Strengthening Community Housing Act, 2020; Putting Students First Act
The Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion was established in 2008 by the Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion Act, 2007. [2] The OAHPP is an agent of the Crown (i.e. a Crown agency) and is considered an arm's-length government agency.
Mental Health Act (Ontario) N. Notifiable diseases in Canada; P. Personal Health Information Protection Act; Pharmacare; R. Rocket v Royal College of Dental Surgeons ...
The Court ruled that the FIPPA Commissioner fundamentally misconstrued the Act in finding that "the presumption in s. 21(3) of an unjustified invasion of personal privacy was subject to rebuttal by the application of a discretionary balancing process under s. 21(2)". [1]