In Logan v. Hong, the British Columbia
Court of Appeal considered whether third party doctors across
Canada were required to provide plaintiff's counsel with the
names and contact information of patients the doctors had injected
with defendants' product. Class counsel argued this was
necessary to ensure potential members of the class were notified so
that they could exercise their rights to opt-in or opt-out of the
class. The British Columbia Court of Appeal disagreed and
held that the order compelling the production of the information
was an unwarranted invasion of the physician patient
The Court's Decision
The Court of Appeal found that as laudable as the
plaintiff's intention might be to seek redress for class
members, it did not justify an invasion of the privacy inherent in
the physician-patient relationship. A patient's privacy
rights trumped the right to access in the class proceeding, with
the Court finding that "[e]ach patient is entitled to
maintenance of the confidentiality implicit in his or her
attendance in a physician's examining room and protection of
his or her privacy on a personal matter, absent serious concerns
relating to health or safety, or express legislative provisions
compelling release of the information in the public
The order that was being appealed from required the disclosure
of the fact of a particular medical treatment, in addition to the
address and contact information, which the Court agreed might be
something that an individual patient would not wish to broadcast.
While the treatment in question was only cosmetic, the
applicable principle relevant to the analysis protected patients in
any situation, just as it would were the treatment for other more
personal medical conditions.
The Court accepted that there is a "special place of
confidentiality" in the physician-patient relationship,
which is long standing, accepted in the relevant case law and
reflected in the Code of Ethics of the Canadian Medical Association
under the heading Fundamental Responsibilities. In concluding
that privacy trumped access, the Court stated that "giving
full weight to the principle of privacy and confidentiality
inherent in the physician-patient relationship, the limited
circumstances that call for breaching the patients' privacy are
not present here."
The Court's decision confirms the importance of the
confidential physician-patient relationship, and clearly signals
that absent serious concerns relating to health or safety, or an
express legislative provision, the confidential nature of the
relationship will not be interfered with.
Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
Norton Rose Fulbright is a global legal practice. We provide
the world's pre-eminent corporations and financial institutions
with a full business law service. We have more than 3800 lawyers
based in over 50 cities across Europe, the United States, Canada,
Latin America, Asia, Australia, Africa, the Middle East and Central
Recognized for our industry focus, we are strong across all
the key industry sectors: financial institutions; energy;
infrastructure, mining and commodities; transport; technology and
innovation; and life sciences and healthcare.
Wherever we are, we operate in accordance with our global
business principles of quality, unity and integrity. We aim to
provide the highest possible standard of legal service in each of
our offices and to maintain that level of quality at every point of
Norton Rose Fulbright LLP, Norton Rose Fulbright Australia,
Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP, Norton Rose Fulbright South
Africa (incorporated as Deneys Reitz Inc) and Fulbright &
Jaworski LLP, each of which is a separate legal entity, are members
('the Norton Rose Fulbright members') of Norton Rose
Fulbright Verein, a Swiss Verein. Norton Rose Fulbright Verein
helps coordinate the activities of the Norton Rose Fulbright
members but does not itself provide legal services to
The content of this article is intended to provide a
general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be
sought about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
In 1988, Apotex Inc. ("Apotex") filed a submission for
approval of its trazodone product with Health Canada. The Apotex
product was ultimately approved in 1995, at which time two other
generic companies already had approval in respect of their
Apotex Inc. ("Apotex") had commenced an action for damages, including punitive damages, against Health Canada for its failure to issue a Notice of Compliance ("NOC") for its product Apo-Trazad until the lapse of a period of seven years.
On September 30, 2014, Health Canada took action to ban the import of finished drug products and active pharmaceutical ingredients ("API") from the following sites located in India: Apotex Pharmachem India Pvt Ltd (APIPL), Apotex Research Private Limited (ARPL) and IPCA Laboratories.