Accuracy and Retention for Decision-Making

Quebec Law 25 section 11 requirements state that any personal information used to make a decision about an individual must be up to date and accurate. Additionally, this data must be kept for at least one year following the decision.

To comply with the Law 25 one year retention following the decision mandate, organizations must keep the personal information used to make a decision for at least one year after the decision is rendered.

A decision under Loi 25 article 11 accuracy and retention typically refers to any determination that significantly affects the individual, such as hiring decisions, credit approvals, insurance claims processing, or automated service denials.

What does up to date and accurate mean under Loi 25 depends on the context, but it requires organizations to take reasonable steps to verify the data's correctness and currency immediately prior to using it for a decision, ensuring the outcome is not based on obsolete or flawed records.

Yes, the Loi 25 retention period for automated or profiling decisions applies equally to both human-driven and automated processes. Any personal information feeding into an automated decision engine must be accurate and retained for the one-year period.

To prove how to prove compliance with Loi 25 section 11, organizations should maintain clear Law 25 documentation for decision-making records retention, including data management policies, automated retention configurations, and audit logs linking specific data to specific decisions.

Any system storing Law 25 personal information used for decision-making is in scope. This includes HR Information Systems (HRIS), Customer Relationship Management (CRM) platforms, credit scoring tools, and applicant tracking systems.

Yes, Quebec privacy law accuracy requirements for HR decisions apply to employment contexts. Information used for hiring, promotions, or terminations must be accurate and kept for at least one year after the decision.

IT teams should enforce validation rules for inputs, implement data quality monitoring, and ensure that source systems are synchronized so that any decision relies on the most current and accurate version of the data available.

No. The statutory requirement to keep the information used to make a decision for at least one year overrides an individual's immediate right to erasure, ensuring the data remains available if the individual chooses to contest the decision.

Meeting § 11 requires knowing which systems and workflows generate or rely on decision-making personal information and ensuring records are not removed before the one-year mark. Tools like WatchDog Security's Compliance Center can map this control to required evidence, collect supporting artifacts (policies, logs, configurations), and highlight gaps when retention controls are missing or outdated.

Evidence usually spans multiple owners (privacy, engineering, IT ops) and sources (tickets, logs, retention configs), which can make audits slow and inconsistent. Tools like WatchDog Security's Trust Center can centralize approved evidence and access controls for sharing with stakeholders, while WatchDog Security's Compliance Center helps organize artifacts and automated evidence collection against § 11 expectations.