All About Information

I love driving trips, and the last few trips I’ve taken I’ve come back and blogged about all the podcasts I’ve listened to while on the road (see here and here).  This fall we had to cancel a two week trip out east in favour of a “staycation,” which has been remarkably enjoyable.  Staying home means access to child care, so Seanna and I have had some nice time together, a rarity nowadays.  Mommy and daddy drop Hugs off and go to a matinée (the new Guy Ritchie movie’s pretty fun).  Mommy and daddy drop Hugs and mommy beats daddy 3-0 in squash, and so on…

Anyway, I did get permission to fly out to Halifax to catch a good swell (solitude also being a rarity nowadays).  I’ve spent the last three days surfing myself to death and, while driving between sessions, listening to a great podcast on managing the threat of campus violence.  (For my most detailed pubic contribution on this topic please click here).

The five audio clips published here were taped at an April 2008 program run by the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University.  The first clip, Blueprint for a Safer Campus, is a bit slow to start, but sets the stage for the event and discusses the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators “Blueprint” (linked here), made in response to the Virginia Tech incident.  The second clip is a fantastic discussion of threat assessment by Dr. Marisa Randazzo (former Chief Research Psychologist for the U.S. Secret Service and co-author of the very significant Secret Service/Department of Education report on threat assessment) and Gene Deisinger (Associate Director of Public Safety and Deputy Chief of Police for the Iowa State University Police Division).  Just excellent, and the highlight of the program for me.  The third clip is of Professor Katherine Newman’s keynote address, in which she profiles two K-12 shooting incidents with a view to explaining the motivation of shooters. I got a little burnt out by clips four and five, one on risk assessment and the other on “a regional perspective.”

I’m back to Toronto now and have a week of staycation to go during which I plan to hang out with Hugs, lounge around and challenge Seanna to a re-match.  If I get a chance to listen to anything else of interest I’ll be sure to let you know.

Dan

Just a quick note to say that yesterday the Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal in Innovative Health Group v. Calgary Health Region, the June decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal that deals with the issue of whole disk production. For a case summary, click here.

I’m working on a couple year-end projects that involve assessing what’s happened this year in the world of Canadian information and privacy law (as broadly as I define it here). Here are fourteen cases I’ve picked that are interesting, if not significant.  Please help me out by voting.  You can pick more than one case, but your vote will be weighted equally – i.e. this polling application doesn’t allow for ranking.  If you vote, you get to view the results.  Hope I get enough participation to give this some validity, but we’ll see.  Dan.

We just published the fall edition of the Information and Privacy Post which, as always, includes edited and indexed versions of the cases first reported here. You’ll find the Post here. Enjoy! Dan.

On November 18th, the British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal in which allegations of spoliation were made. The outcome is not remarkable, as the claim was based on the routine destruction of records pursuant to policy before litigation was reasonably contemplated. In a testament to how interesting this issue has become, however, Madam Justice Rowles went on gratuitously about spoliation in great detail, describing the debate about the doctrine in both Canadian and American law. If you too are interested in the issue, this case is worth a read.

Holland v. Marshall, 2008 BCCA 468 (CanLII).

On November 19th, the British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed a defendant’s motion to postpone the production of a non-privileged video surveillance tape so it could better test the plaintiff’s credibility in oral discovery.

The dispute was about the discretion to order relief from production that is granted expressly by Rule 26(1.2) of the British Columbia Supreme Court Rules. The essence of the Court of Appeal’s decision is captured in the following excerpt:

In my view, it is the extensive scope of this common law disclosure rule that created the need for reasonable limitations.  Stated in another way, it is the “slavish” application of R. 26(1) which informs the scope of R. 26 (1.2). 

The appellants seek to distinguish these decisions under R. 26(1.2) on the basis that they do not involve a key issue of credibility. They submit that, in this case, an order postponing the production of the surveillance videotapes would give them the opportunity to test the willingness of the respondent to lie about her claim.  They argue that, in the absence of such an order, the respondent might tailor her evidence to fit the scenario depicted in the videotape. 

With respect, I do not accept this argument as representing a valid purpose for an application of R. 26(1.2).  In this case, there has been no factual determination regarding the respondent’s truthfulness, or lack thereof.  This is the appellants’ theory of liability, and it is for them to establish in the course of the trial.  Nor am I persuaded that the Rules of Court were intended to be used in a manner that would displace a right of a party granted under them, in favour of creating an opportunity for an adverse party to advance their theory of a fact in issue.

This excerpt followed a detailed lead-in on how Rule 26(1.2) has been applied to protect privacy (by allowing for the redaction of non-relevant and sensitive information) and to encourage proportionality in production. The only other jurisdiction with a comparable provision is the Federal Court (see section 230 of the Federal Court Rules).

Stephen v. McGillivray, 2008 BCCA 472.

The Ontario Court of Appeal issued reasons today for orally dismissing an application brought by Canadian Civil Liberties Association to intervene in the appeal of Tadros v. Peel Regional Police Services. This is a case from last October in which the Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that a police service unlawfully disclosed information about an individual’s withdrawn criminal charges in the course of conducting background checks (see “Breadth of disclosure in criminal background checks unlawful” here). The Court of Appeal’s procedural decision indicates that the merits of the appeal were to be heard yesterday and the day before.

On November 14th, the Alberta Court of Appeal held that an appeal by the Alberta Information and Privacy Commissioner was moot because the complainant had passed away.  This leaves intact the Alberta Queen’s Bench’s decision that the 90-day time limit for completing an inquiry in section 50(5) of PIPA is mandatory.  It also may do away with the first drug testing complaint brought under PIPA.

Kellogg Brown and Root Canada v. Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2008 ABCA 384 (CanLII).

The OPC blog recently noted a case from February where the Federal Court held that the disclosure of the data about the province from which adverse drug reactions were reported to Health Canada was personal information.

The proceeding followed an access request made by the CBC.  Health Canada had given the CBC some information from its adverse drug reactions database but denied access to the “province” field.  The CBC brought a court application, and the OPC intervened in support of Health Canada’s decision.  

In disposing of the matter, the Federal Court accepted a “serious possibility” test proposed by the OPC:

Information will be about an identifiable individual where there is a serious possibility that an individual could be identified through the use of that information, alone or in combination with other available information.

It accepted that disclosure of the province field would meet this test based on the other information disclosed by Health Canada (which included a subject’s height, weight, age and reaction description among other data) and other publicly available information.

This is a big issue.  Questions:  Was the outcome implicitly driven by the sensitivity of hte information?  Should that be part of the test?

Gordon v. Canada (Health), 2008 FC 258 (CanLII).

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice’s October 20 decision in Warman v. Grosvenor has been well-covered in blogs and by the national media.  The Court ordered the defendant to pay $50,000 in damages for assault and defamation for what the plaintiff claimed was an internet and e-mail based “campaign of terror.”

The Court did dismiss the plaintiff’s breach of privacy claim, which he based on the defendant’s act of publishing his home address (identified with the aide of an aerial map).  Significantly, the Court held that the damages for breach of privacy only flow from harm that is not subsumed by the torts of defamation (which addresses harm to reputation) and assault (which the Court said addresses the interest in freedom from fear of being physically interfered with).  In this case, the Court held that the damages claimed by the plaintiff were subsumed by the damages claimed for assault.

Warman v. Grosvenor, [2008] O.J. NO. 4462 (S.C.J.) (QL).