Canada: Ontario Court Of Appeal Allows Privacy Class Action To Proceed Against Hospital


In a significant decision released this week, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in Hopkins v. Kay that a private plaintiff may bring a class proceeding for damages in tort against Peterborough Regional Health Centre (PRHC or the Hospital) for the unauthorized access to personal health information, even in circumstances where the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario has closed his investigation. The Court rejected the argument that Personal Health Information Protection Act (PHIPA) was a comprehensive code that precluded tort claims, and in so doing, the Court has signalled that health information custodians may face significant civil exposure in damages for future incidents involving unauthorized access to personal health information by a rogue employee or third party. The decision also suggests that private plaintiffs might be able to pursue class proceedings for privacy breaches in other provinces that have comprehensive privacy statutes, as well in regulated sectors and industries where the legislature has created a separate regulatory and enforcement regime. 

The PHIPA Regime

Across Canada, there is wide recognition that individuals have a unique privacy interest in respect of their personal health information and their communications with medical health care professionals. In recognition of this interest, legislatures across Canada have passed specific legislation that establishes a regime for protecting such records. For example, in Ontario, PHIPA establishes a regime that governs the collection, use and disclosure of personal health information and generally provides that a "custodian" of personal health information shall not access or disclose such information absent the patient's consent or where expressly permitted or required by PHIPA. PHIPA also established a regulatory regime that is enforced by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, and under that regime, a patient can only seek compensation for a breach of PHIPA in certain limited circumstances.

More specifically, a patient who suspects that there has been a breach of PHIPA by another person may file a formal complaint with the Commissioner. In response to a complaint, the Commissioner has broad compulsive powers of investigation, including the ability to demand production of records and to inspect premises. Upon the completion of his or her investigation, the Commissioner may issue a range of prospective remedial orders, including orders requiring the custodian to cease or to implement practices related to the use, collection or disclosure, of personal health information. In addition, if the Attorney General determines that there was a willful breach of the provisions of the Act, the Attorney General can prosecute the violation as a regulatory offence. If a court finds that the person or custodian committed an offence, PHIPA provides that individuals can be fined up to $50,000 and organizations up to $250,000. However, any prosecution for such conduct is in the hands of the Attorney General, and the Commissioner's remedial powers are generally limited to prospective orders designed to ensure future compliance.

In the event that the Commissioner issues a remedial order, PHIPA permits a limited remedy for damages. More specifically, a person affected by the order may commence a proceeding in the Superior Court of Justice for damages for "actual harm" that the person has suffered as a result of a contravention of PHIPA or its regulations.  In event that the Superior Court finds that the defendants engaged in wilful or reckless behaviour and that the plaintiff's "actual harm" was caused by a contravention of PHIPA, the Court may issue an award of damages for actual pecuniary losses as well as damages for mental anguish. However, PHIPA expressly provides that a plaintiff's claim for damages for mental anguish shall not exceed $10,000.

On its face, the private action regime under PHIPA is deliberately circumscribed as a matter of policy, and reflects a careful legislative balancing of the interests of health information custodians and individual patients. First, under PHIPA, a plaintiff may only seek damages in circumstances where the Commissioner has already conducted an investigation and issued a remedial order. Second, a plaintiff must demonstrate wilful and reckless conduct to recover damages. Third, a plaintiff must demonstrate actual harm. Fourth, a plaintiff's claim for damages for mental anguish is limited to $10,000. Finally, PHIPA also incorporates an immunity provision which creates a defence for custodians and their agents for any act or omission done in the course of exercising powers or duties under PHIPA, if made in good faith and reasonable in the circumstances.

Given the legislature's careful balancing of interests under PHIPA, it was widely assumed that the private damages remedy under PHIPA was exhaustive (i.e., it specifically precluded claims by individual plaintiffs in tort, since this careful legislative balancing of interests would arguably be completely undermined if an individual could circumvent a Commissioner's investigation through a private claim in tort that sought damages in excess of the statutory maximum).   

The Tort of Intrusion Upon Seclusion

At the time of the passage of PHIPA in 2004, the possibility of private claims in tort was not a significant concern since the courts were divided as to whether there was a distinct tort remedy for a breach of privacy, particularly in the absence of actual harm. However, over time, a line of authority developed in the jurisprudence that suggested that there might be a distinct tort for an intrusion of privacy, particularly in light of parallel jurisprudence under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that recognized the constitutional value of privacy.1 The Ontario Court of Appeal finally resolved that debate in 2012 in a watershed decision that revisited the foundation for the private enforcement of privacy rights in Canada.

In short, in its decision in Jones v. Tsige, the Ontario Court of Appeal recognized a new common law tort for "intrusion upon seclusion." To establish the tort, a plaintiff must demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, that (i) the defendant's conduct was intentional; (ii) the defendant must have invaded, without lawful justification, the plaintiff's private affairs or concerns; and (iii) a reasonable person would regard the invasion as highly offensive causing distress, humiliation or anguish. In its decision in Jones, the Court of Appeal stressed that "proof of actual loss is not an element of the cause of action for intrusion upon seclusion." Moreover, the Court provided some general guidance on the assessment of damages, and held that in cases that did not involve any pecuniary loss, a plaintiff would be entitled to damages up to $20,000. 

In rendering its decision in Jones, the Court of Appeal removed some of the historical obstacles to the private enforcement of privacy rights, particularly in respect of proof of loss. Under traditional tort law, a plaintiff would be normally be expected to demonstrate an actual pecuniary loss arising from a privacy breach, but in Jones, the Court of Appeal eliminated that requirement in respect of the new tort. In addition, while the tort still required proof of "intentional" conduct, it arguably remained open for a plaintiff to pursue claims based on recklessness as well as willfulness. In so doing, the Court arguably created a more accessible remedy than certain remedies under statute given the potential flexibility in proving intention. And in contrast to the certain remedies under statute (such as the private remedy under PHIPA), a plaintiff that pursues a claim in tort does not have to wait for the regulator to complete its investigation before pursuing a claim in damages. Moreover, a plaintiff that files a claim in tort is not subject to any statutory maximums or any immunity provisions. But perhaps most importantly, by establishing a regime for enforcement that did not require individual inquiries into pecuniary losses, the Court of Appeal in Jones laid the foundation for a private damages remedy that appeared to be much more amenable to certification as a class proceeding, since it arguably removed any individualized issues relating to individual loss. (See our January 2012 Osler Update for more on the Jones decision)

The Breach at the Peterborough Regional Health Centre

In 2011, the Peterborough Regional Health Centre discovered that a number of employees, including a supervising nurse, appeared to have accessed the personal health information of up to 280 patients without their advance knowledge or consent. Based on media reports, the breach included unauthorized access to the records of a victim of domestic violence who was in hiding and unauthorized access to hundreds of therapeutic abortion files by a records clerk that was an anti-abortion activist.

The PRHC took prompt remedial action, including disciplinary action against the employees in question. As required by PHIPA, the PRHC also provided notice to the patients whose records appeared to have been improperly accessed. Based on public reports, the Commissioner commenced an investigation in May 2011 focused on the Hospital's conduct. However, the Commissioner did not take further action against the Hospital, on the basis that the Hospital "responded reasonably" to the incident by notifying the affected patients, firing the employees involved and conducting a Hospital-wide privacy campaign. As a result, the Commissioner determined that "no further action was warranted" against the Hospital and appears to have formally closed its file.

The Class Action Against the PRHC

A group of affected patients was not satisfied with the outcome of the Commissioner's investigation and determined to seek their own relief from the Court. In spite of the provisions of PHIPA that suggested that the legislature had adopted a comprehensive regulatory regime for addressing privacy issues in the health care system, the affected patients launched a class action against the Hospital that sought over $5 million in damages for breach of PHIPA, breach of contract, breach of confidentiality, negligence and the tort of intrusion upon seclusion.

In response to this claim, the Hospital brought a motion that sought to strike the proposed class action on a preliminary basis, on the grounds that the legislature did not preclude the possibility of a private action for breach of privacy, or the possibility of a class proceeding, by adopting the regulatory regime in PHIPA. In so doing, the Hospital relied on a similar decision by the B.C. Court of Appeal from 2009 that suggested that there was no common law claim for breach of privacy in light of the legislature's adoption of a regulatory regime under the Privacy Act (B.C.).

By the time that the motion was argued before Justice Edwards of the Ontario Superior Court in 2013, the affected patients had limited their claims for damages for the tort of the intrusion upon seclusion. At first instance, the Court dismissed the Hospital's motion in January 2014. Given the state of the law, the Court found that it was not plain and obvious that the plaintiffs could not succeed in their proposed class proceeding. The Court further indicated that given the Court of Appeal's decision in Jones, the Hospital would likely require direction from the Court of Appeal to succeed in its argument.2 In light of that direction, the Hospital appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The appeal was argued in December 2014. In an interesting development, the Commissioner intervened on the appeal and argued that PHIPA does not prevent private plaintiffs (and class plaintiffs) from pursuing actions for damages in tort, even in cases where the Commissioner did not take regulatory action.

The Court of Appeal's Decision

The Court of Appeal unanimously found that PHIPA was not an exhaustive code, and did not preclude a private plaintiff (or a class plaintiff) from pursuing an action in tort against a health care institution for a privacy breach.3 In its decision, the Court placed considerable deference to the views of the Commissioner regarding the scope of the statute. The Court also noted that the Commissioner might not pursue an investigation for a number of reasons that should not impair the ability of a plaintiff to seek personal compensation.

As the Court noted, "[the Commissioner's] primary objective in achieving an appropriate resolution will not be to provide an individual remedy to the complainant, but rather to address systemic issues."

The Court also distinguished the law of Ontario from the law in B.C. – in short, the Court reasoned that in B.C., the legislature appeared to have created a distinct statutory cause of action for breach of privacy, whereas in Ontario, the legislature had not gone that far. In light of that void in Ontario, the Court determined that the plaintiffs in the proposed class action were entitled to pursue their claims based on the "distinct common law tort" that had been recognized in Jones.  

Implications of the Court of Appeal's Decision

The Court of Appeal's decision was highly anticipated by the health, privacy and class actions bar, and by health information custodians across Canada, and there are a number of key implications to take from the case:

  • Private plaintiffs may pursue claims in tort for privacy breaches in the health care sector. The Court clearly ruled that PHIPA is not an exhaustive code and that private plaintiffs may bring damages claims in tort against health information custodians for privacy breaches. 
  • Private plaintiffs may pursue claims in tort for privacy breaches even if the Commissioner has taken no regulatory action. In the appeal proceedings, the Commissioner took a clear position that his statutory duties are focused on investigating and redressing systemic issues, not pursuing compensation claims. As a result, even if the Commissioner determines that a  health information custodian acted responsibly and reasonably, the custodian may still be subject to ongoing private action and class action claims from patients – even if those patients did not suffer actual or pecuniary harm beyond embarrassment, humiliation and mental anguish.
  • The legal exposure of health information custodians for privacy claims has increased. While PHIPA permits damages claims in certain limited circumstances, the potential legal exposure of health information custodians to damages under the common law tort of intrusion upon seclusion is substantially larger. Under the tort, a plaintiff does not have to demonstrate actual harm as a predicate to a claim. Moreover, under the tort, a plaintiff can seek damages up to $20,000 (i.e., double the statutory limit under PHIPA), as well as potentially punitive damages. Finally, given the absence of a requirement of individual harm, a group of private plaintiffs may be in a stronger position to pursue a collective claim for relief under class proceedings legislation.
  • The Court's reasoning may extend to other provinces and other industries. Finally, the Court's framework of analysis suggests that private plaintiffs may be able to pursue damages claims in respect of privacy breaches in other sectors or industries including  heavily regulated sectors and industries where the legislature has already created a separate enforcement and damages regime. For example, the Court's reasoning might apply to the financial services, telecommunications or transportation sectors, and might apply to unionized environments that provide for exclusive remedies under a grievance procedure set out in a collective agreement. In addition, while the Court's decision was limited to the legislative environment in Ontario, the Court's reasoning arguably extends to other provinces that have similar comprehensive legislation in the health care sector.
  • The Court's decision may lay the groundwork for more privacy class actions in Canada. It is important to stress that the Court of Appeal was only seized with a motion to strike, and the Court did not consider whether the plaintiff's claims were suitable for class certification. Moreover, the Court did not make any finding of liability, and did not conduct any assessment of the plaintiff's claim for over $5 million in damages. However, in an earlier decision in February 2014 in Evans v. The Bank of Nova Scotia, the Ontario Superior Court certified a class action against a financial institution for an alleged privacy breach, and as part of its decision, the Court certified the representative plaintiff's claims for the tort of intrusion upon seclusion as part of the common issues. Given the evolving law on class certification relating to privacy claims, it remains to be seen whether the plaintiffs in Hopkins v. Kay will also be able to achieve class certification, particularly given the arguably individualized nature of the consequences of a privacy breach. But the Court of Appeal's decision in Hopkins v. Kay, coupled with the Superior Court's decision in Evans v. The Bank of Nova Scotia, appears to invite a fertile landscape for the class actions bar to pursue collective claims of relief for significant aggregate claims of damage against organizations in the health care sector.


1 See, e.g., Somwar v. McDonald's Restaurants of Canada Ltd. (2006), 79 O.R. (3d) 172.

2 Jessica Hopkins, et al. v. Peterborough Regional Health Centre, et al. 20144 ONAC 321, at para. 30 ("Hopkins v. Kay").

3 Hopkins v. Kay, 2015 ONCA 12. 

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

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.