Citi Cards Revisited (Again) – The Definitive Statement On How Judgment Creditors Can Avoid PIPEDA

The Court of Appeal's decision in Royal Bank of Canada v. Trang, 2014 ONCA 883 ("Trang") has important implications for judgment creditors and mortgagees. Writing for the majority in a 3-2 decision, Justice Laskin held that a mortgage discharge statement is personal information protected under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act ("PIPEDA"). As a result, a mortgagee cannot provide a mortgage discharge statement to a judgment creditor without the mortgagor's express consent, a court order, or pursuant to a statutory requirement.

In Trang, the Royal Bank of Canada ("RBC") obtained a judgment against its debtors Phat and Phuong Trang ("the Trangs"). RBC sought to have the Sheriff sell the Trangs' house to collect its judgment. The Sheriff refused to sell the house without a mortgage discharge statement from Scotiabank, which held the first mortgage on the house. The Trangs refused to produce the statement. Scotiabank also refused to produce