PUBLICATIONS

The Court dismissed LifeLabs LP's ("LifeLabs") application for judicial review. 

First Published in Advocates Quarterly. This paper addresses whether the same principles regarding the “real and substantial possibility” standard of proof apply to a hypothetical past loss claim as they do to a hypothetical future loss claim, and the interplay between the two standards of proof applicable to hypothetical claims: balance of probabilities for the “but for” causation test, and “real and substantial possibility” for damages.

The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) can apply to not-for-profits. PIPEDA applies to organizations that collect, use or disclose personal information in the course of commercial activities. While commercial activities may seem to be a blanket statement indicating that PIPEDA applies only to for-profit corporations, the relevant authorities suggest otherwise.

In Owsianik v. Equifax Canada Co (Equifax), 2021 ONSC 4112, the Divisional Court was required to determine the scope of the court to intervene when Equifax's client stored data was hacked by an unknown third party. Specifically, the Court needed to determine whether the Court created tort known as intrusion upon seclusion would include the failure to protect people's private data against a third-party intrusion.

The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Sherman Estate v Donovan (2021 SCC 25) reinforces the open court principle as a constitutionally entrenched right of freedom of expression and thereby a justified limit on the right to privacy. The Trustees of the Sherman Estate lost their appeal to keep probate documents sealed as they did not meet the threshold of proving that court openness presented a serious risk to the public interest.

In Ontario, there is a well-established practice of asking jurors to provide reasons for their verdicts. The jury is not absolutely required to provide this information. There is a presumption of integrity regarding general verdicts; simply because the jury did not explain its verdict is not a ground for appeal.

The exception to this presumption arises in professional negligence cases...

In Ontario, s.4 of the Limitations Act, 2002, (“Act”) establishes a two-year limitation period for a claimant to commence an action, which begins to run once the claim is discovered. However, there exists an exception for those claimants that are “incapable” to commence the proceeding.

In this case study, a man suffering from mental illness and psychotic delusions, killed his son and later commenced an action against the drug company...

You have just been sued for breach of contract by a former business partner.

As you skim through a legal document that sets out a laundry list of your alleged failures and faux pas, a few paragraphs jump out at you. Why does the document make reference to an argument over the design of your company's logo? And why is there commentary on the not-so-secret office romance between two of your employees? As far as you can tell, neither of these issues have anything to do with the contract in dispute.

The recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in R v Jarvis is the high court's most recent pronouncement on privacy rights. Jarvis concerned a high school English teacher who used a pen camera to surreptitiously record videos of female students. Charged with the criminal code offence of voyeurism the courts below grappled with the issues of whether Mr. Jarvis recorded the students for a sexual purpose, and whether the students had a reasonable expectation of privacy while at school. Ultimately, Mr. Jarvis's conviction was upheld and the matter remitted for sentencing, but along the way, the court laid down some important principles which will affect the judicial interpretation of privacy in all areas going forward.

In Ontario (Children's Lawyer for Ontario) v Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner) 2018 ONCA 599, the Court of Appeal for Ontario considered the novel issue of whether a child-client's litigation records with the Children's Lawyer should be subject to a father's freedom of information access request. The Adjudicator at first instance determined that the records were “in custody or under the control” of the Attorney General (“MAG”) and ordered that MAG respond to the father's request. On judicial review at the Divisional Court, the court upheld the order of the Adjudicator. In a rare move, the Children's Lawyer appealed...

In a recent decision, the Federal Court of Appeal confirmed that common interest privilege (“CIP”) is a principle of Canadian law. This principle is unlike solicitor-client privilege, in that communication between counsel and a third party may be considered privileged if the shared information is to benefit both parties, especially with respect to the furtherance of a commercial transaction. The court overturned a Federal Court decision which held that that CIP is not a principle of Canadian law.

With the increasing interconnectivity of businesses to date, information is now exposed to a broad number of threats. Businesses need to ensure there is protection of information in order to prevent loss, unauthorized access or misuse. Businesses must have in place a process of assessing threats and risks to information and the procedures and controls to preserve the information.

There are three guiding principles...

On March 26, 2018, the Government of Canada passed an Order in Council fixing November 1, 2018, as the date on which section 10 of the Digital Privacy Act (“the DPA”) comes into force. This section creates a new division in the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (“PIPEDA”) that will require private commercial enterprises to report certain breaches of security safeguards.

The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (“IPC”) recently considered whether and under what circumstances insurers could collect health card numbers from their insureds.

The issue arose when the Ministry of Health and Long-term Care informed the IPC that individuals’ health card numbers were compromised by criminal activity and were being used to file fraudulent claims...

The last 20 years have seen radical advances in technology, the like humankind has never known. The revolutionary way in which data can now be stored, catalogued, and shared has arguably led to a significant “digitization” of individuals. Simply, more of our lives are being recorded than ever before, whether it be voluntary (Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat etc.) or involuntary (intelligence gathering, surveillance etc.).

In light of this digitization, there has been a growing pressure to carve out a space where neither corporations nor government can intrude on the individual, and when they do, to govern what can be made of that information. This is essentially the concept the law recognizes as “privacy”.

Professor Anton Oleynik of Memorial University in Newfoundland and Labrador was denied a research grant by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (commonly known as “SSHRC”) in 2007.  That denial set off a firestorm of legal proceedings throughout the country that has now spanned nearly a decade.  

The decision of Justice Boswell in Oleynik v. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, released on October 19, 2016, is the latest chapter in this chronicle..

PIPEDA requires the full and timely disclosure of personal information generated in the course of commercial activity. However, personal information does not need to be disclosed when the information is generated in the course of a “formal dispute resolution process”, such as an arbitration. For years now, all insurance companies incorporated in Canada have been required to establish procedures for dealing with complaints. The question then arises: does personal information generated in the course of the complaint become subject to PIPEDA?

The relentless expansion of the internet into all facets of our lives has created many opportunities for the advancement of the law. Cyberspace is the modern frontier for the law to tame. On any given day, the facets of the internet are built upon by the contributions of billions of people. As a result of its directly democratic nature, it contains examples of the full spectrum of human behaviour that runs from selfless altruism to selfish insecurities and hatred.

Justice Stinson's recent decision in Jane Doe 464533 v. X (the defendant's name is subject to a publication restriction) is a step in remedying the excesses of internet use.

The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Data Act (PIPEDA) governs how private sector organizations collect, use and disclose personal information in the course of commercial business. For the purposes of PIPEDA, a landlord is an organization engaged in a commercial activity and is therefore required to comply with the Act. PIPEDA defines “Personal Information” as information about an identifiable individual, but does not include the name, title business address or telephone number of an employee of an organization

On February 18, 2015, Justices Sharpe, van Rensburg and Pardu of the Court of Appeal for Ontario released their long-awaited privacy law decision in Hopkins v. Kay. Despite the fact that the Personal Health Information Protection Act ("PHIPA") is a "lengthy and detailed statute" that comprehensively addresses "the collection, use, disclosure, retention and disposal of personal health information", the Court affirmed that plaintiffs are still entitled to raise the common law tort for breaches of privacy in circumstances involving health information.

With the increasing interconnectivity of businesses to date, information is now exposed to a broad number of threats. Businesses need to ensure there is protection of information in order to prevent loss, unauthorized access or misuse. Businesses must have in place a process of assessing threats and risks to information and the procedures and controls to preserve the information. There are three guiding principles:

Today the Ontario Court of Appeal released its long-awaited decision inMoore v. Getahun, dealing with significant issues in relation to the preparation and use of expert witness reports at trial, including the scope of permissible communications between counsel and expert witnesses.

A new risk has entered the marketplace. It is called cyber-risk, and it is responsible for the equivalent of millions of dollars in lost revenue, client loyalty, and goodwill. For the purposes of this paper, cyber risk relates to the mishandling of customer information (CI) throughout its acquisition, retention and destruction – what some business analysts refer to as the lifecycle of customer data. The privacy of CI has become paramount as companies continue to struggle with data management and the ensuing loss of consumer confidence.

As a corporate concept, risk is not new. Insurance companies are in the business of risk. It is what they do, and they manage it well. This paper discusses the management of cyber risk and, specifically, how to implement and execute an effective privacy management program (PMP).

Class action litigation arising out of cyber and privacy risks is increasing in Canada. The cases involve a broad range of privacy and cyber risks including lost portable electronic storage devices, uploads to an unsecure website, improper disposal of computer equipment, unauthorized access and dissemination by rogue employees, cybercrime and business practices. More breaches, increased breach notifications, widespread media reports and growing concern about privacy rights have all likely contributed to the increase in class action proceedings. In addition, the recent recognition of a new tort for invasion of privacy by the Ontario Court of Appeal in 2012 has resulted in certification of privacy class actions based on the new tort. This paper will discuss examples of Canadian cyber and privacy cases which have been certified as class actions, cases that have settled, and cases that have been recently commenced as proposed class actions.

Is installing a telematics device in an insured's vehicle an unreasonable invasion of privacy? Two lawyers debate the issues...

Ontario does not have a single overarching privacy and access law. Rather, it is subject to several different pieces of legislation that apply depending on the nature of the organization involved and the type of information that is being collected, used, or disclosed. The principal privacy legislation of interest to lawyers in Ontario is PIPEDA.

This article describes key concepts of PIPEDA including the application of PIPEDA, what personal information is, the privacy priniciples of PIPEDA, privacy issues in the context of litigation, employee personal information, international issues and using foreign service providers.

The facts of Jones v Tsige are fairly straightforward: the plaintiff and the defendant both worked for the Bank of Montreal, albeit at different branches. They also were, at one time or another, involved with the same man; the plaintiff had been married to him previously, while the defendant was common law married to him at the time of the incident. Despite these intersecting facts, the plaintiff and the defendant did not know each other personally.

The defendant, making use of her access as an employee of the bank, accessed the plaintiff's banking information some 174 times.

Canada's Anti-Spam Legislation (“CASL”) will finally be coming into force on July 1, 2014. CASL has been law for over three years now, but there have been various amendments and changes made to it over that time period. Here we will take a brief look at the main rules and exceptions under CASL, but it ought to be said up-front that CASL is one of the most stringent and restrictive set of anti-spam laws enacted globally.

Business owners ought to take special note of the CASL requirements, as the consequences of infringement can be steep (up to $1 million in fines for individuals, and $10 million for corporations — and once the private right of action provisions come into force, each offending communication can be worth $200 to the recipient in damages).

The Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) unanimously found Alberta's Personal Information Protection Act, S.A. 2003, c. P 6.5 ("PIPA") to be unconstitutional as it does not strike an appropriate balance between an individual's right to control the collection, use, and disclosure of its personal information and a union's right to freedom of expression. 

In Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 401, 2013 SCC 62, employees of the Palace Casino at West Edmonton Mall conducted a lawful strike in 2006 which lasted 305 days. The United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 401 representing the workers (the “Union”) and a security company hired by the employer video-taped and photographed the picketers at the Casino's entrance. The Union posted signs stating that images of persons crossing the picket line may be posted on “www.casinoscabs.ca”. Several people who were filmed crossing the picket line complained to the Alberta Information and Privacy Commissioner (the “Commissioner”) under PIPA, alleging that the Union infringed their privacy rights by collecting, using and disclosing their personal information without their consent.

The Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) unanimously found Alberta's Personal Information Protection Act, S.A. 2003, c. P 6.5 ("PIPA") to be unconstitutional as it does not strike an appropriate balance between an individual's right to control the collection, use, and disclosure of its personal information and a union's right to freedom of expression.

There have been a number of interesting tort decisions over the last twelve months, some providing much needed clarification to the existing common law and some creating brand new law. As has been a trend in the past few years, damage awards have also seen an increase, primarily as a result of rising future care costs damages.

This paper examines five interesting tort decisions that were released over the course of the past year and have received substantial attention. It also examines the state of increasing future care costs awards and provides some helpful case law to consider when facing a significant future care costs claim.

A journalist does not have the constitutional right to protect a confidential source. That is the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada in R v National Post, released on May 7th.