Are Section 44 Exam Reports under SABS Subject to PIPEDA Disclosure?

R. Lee Akazaki, C.S., B.A. (Hons.), J.D.Accident Benefits, Administrative Law, Commercial, Privacy0 Comments

To date, the Ontario personal injury bar has assumed that assessors and “IME” companies performing examinations under s. 44 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) are subject to access requirements under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA).   The “leading case” on IME’s and PIPEDA, Wyndowe v. Rousseau, a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal, held that a doctor appointed to perform an independent medical examination under a disability insurance policy had to provide access to a final report and notes.  The disability insurer’s internal process under the private insurance policy would not have been a formal dispute resolution process and therefore not exempt from PIPEDA. Under clause 9(3)(d) of PIPEDA, an organization is not required to give access to personal information if it was “generated in the course of a formal dispute resolution process.”  Is a s. 44 examination subject to that exemption?  The federal Office of the Privacy … Read More

Liability Possibilities for Third-Party Privacy Invasions in Agnew-Americano v Equifax Canada

Yona Gal, J.D., LL.MCyber Risks, Cyber Security, Privacy, Technology and Internet0 Comments

A company learns its cybersecurity is vulnerable to hacking but fails to implement preventative measures.  Hackers attack and access the private data of clients.  Can these clients sue the company for the tort of privacy invasion (“intrusion upon seclusion”) or can the company escape liability because it has only allowed a third-party invasion? The question turns on the definition of invasion.  As held in the leading case of Jones v Tsige, the tort of intrusion upon seclusion consists of three elements: Intentional or reckless conduct; That invades the defendant’s privacy; and The invasion must reasonably be regarded as highly offensive causing distress, humiliation or anguish. Does allowance of a third-party invasion meet the second requirement? In deciding which of two actions should proceed as a class action in Ontario, the Court in Agnew-Americano v Equifax Canada expressed preliminary support favouring the possibility of liability for third-party invasions.  The Court held claims that … Read More

Nick Poon Comments on Privacy Issues for the Toronto Star

Nick P. Poon, B.Sc. (Hons.), B.A., J.D.Contract Disputes, Entertainment and Media, Gilbertson Davis LLP News, Privacy0 Comments

Nick Poon was recently asked to comment on privacy issues associated with filming in public places for the Toronto Star. Read the Toronto Star article here: Chinatown filming notice provokes heated debate on social media. If you have a privacy issue or contract dispute in the field of media and entertainment, please contact us for an initial consultation.

Is Your Car Insurance Company Violating Your Privacy Rights?

Sabrina Saltmarsh, B.A. (Hons), J.D.Insurance, Privacy0 Comments

If you are seriously injured in a car accident, there are two types of claims that can be made. One is the no fault claim from your own insurance company for accident benefits, and the other is a lawsuit or court claim, against the at fault driver. In Ontario, there are a number of very large insurance companies that sell car insurance, because of this sometimes your car insurance company may also be the same company that insures the person at fault for your injuries. Even though you can make two separate claims, it is the same insurance company behind the scenes responding to both claims. In these situations, there are strict internal privacy rules insurance companies have to follow to protect your privacy. 1) Accident Benefits And Your Confidential Private Data Your policy provides standard “no-fault” or accident benefits to give you access to early treatment, possibly some income … Read More