Canada: Case Summary: Halley v McCann

Last Updated: February 28 2018
Article by Field LLP

II. LIABILITY ISSUES

B. Where a hospital employee leaked the fact that the Plaintiff patient to family members, she was held liable for the tort of publication of embarrassing facts and damages of $7,500 were awarded for damages plus $1,500 in punitive damages.

Halley v McCann, 2016 CanLII 58945 (Ont.S.C.S.M.), per Judge McGill [4258]

I. FACTS AND ISSUES

Halley sued her half-sister for the tort of public disclosure of embarrassing private facts.

Halley and McCann are half-sisters with a long history of animosity. They had only spoken to each other twice in the preceding 15 years, the last time being at a sister's funeral in 2011 "where friction again resurfaced".

Halley's health had always been an issue. In addition to physical complaints, she had suffered from depression and anxiety. At her heaviest Halley weighed 500 pounds but in the years before the incident, she worked hard and lost 240 pounds. In 2013 Halley moved back to Kitchener to seek treatment for her health. In September 2013, Halley checked herself into a crisis center (Crisis Respite House, operated by the Waterloo Regional Homes for Mental Health Inc.).

The crisis facility had a privacy policy which restricted and controlled the collection, use, storage and dissemination of personal information and personal health information.

Halley did not know that her sister (McCann) was an intake worker at the facility. When McCann was hired she signed a confidentiality agreement, wherein she agreed "to keep in strict confidence any information regarding any consumer, employee or business of Waterloo Regional Homes for Mental Health Inc". Halley reviewed a copy of this privacy policy when she was admitted.

On the day that Halley was admitted, McCann arrived for a night shift. It was at that point that McCann realized that her sister had become a resident of the facility. McCann claimed this was an awkward situation and that her sister, Halley "wouldn't want to see her" and claimed not to know exactly what to do. McCann stayed out of sight for the rest of her shift and did not work for any of the following days during which Halley was a resident.

McCann told four others (three outside the facility) about the fact that her sister Halley had been admitted to the facility. She discussed it with a coworker. She called her daughter (a registered nurse) to ask advice as to what she should do. The daughter advised her to go home or to discuss it with a coworker. At the end of her shift, McCann told her husband and her brother Fabion about Halley having been admitted to the facility. Fabion recalled that this was by way of a phone call but McCann testified that she had texted him.

Halley ultimately left the crisis facility feeling much better.

A week after Halley returned home, her brother's former common-law spouse (Lisa) arrived and asked Halley if she had been in a crisis house, without even saying hello first. When Halley, visibly upset and shaken, asked Lisa how she knew, the response was that the brother Fabion had told her.

Halley complained to the crisis facility. Initially, after an investigation the facility denied responsibility. After Halley complained to the Privacy Commissioner, the facility issued an apology letter, acknowledging that McCann had contravened the facility's privacy policy in telling her husband and brother.

Halley's doctor filed evidence to the effect that Halley had "definitely" become more stressed, anxious and depressed after finding out that others knew about her stay at the facility. Halley and her boyfriend, Dean, became more fragile, anxious and reclusive.

McCann did not apologize.

II. HELD: For Halley: damages awarded: $7,500 for generals and $1,500 for punitive damages.

  1. The Court recognized that the Ontario courts had recently recognized common-law privacy actions, citing Jones v. Tsige 2012 ONCA 32 as recognizing the tort of intrusion upon seclusion. The Court also cited Jane Doe 464533 v. N.D., 2016 ONSC 541 which recognized the tort of publication of embarrassing private facts:

    1. The Court found that both torts were recognized in Ontario and that neither required proof of pecuniary loss or harm to be awarded damages but that aggravated and punitive damages could be awarded.
  2. The Court held that the existence of a statutory cause of action under Ontario privacy legislation did not preclude damages in a common law suit as the statute was construed as not intending to be an exhaustive or comprehensive compensatory scheme:

    20. These two common law torts exist in addition to the statutory right or cause of action available to a plaintiff under the privacy legislation. The Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 S.O. c. 3, Sch A, s. 65 (PHIPA) contemplates mental anguish damages for breaches of statutory duty up to a maximum of $10,000. In Hopkins v. Kay 2015 ONCA 112 (CanLII) (paras 44-45, 73) the Ontario Court of Appeal considered whether the complaints process available under PHIPA displaces the common law authority of the courts to award damages for breach of the statutory duty and found that the legislation is not intended to be an exhaustive or comprehensive compensatory scheme. The complaints process is more suited to systemic breaches and an individual victim retains the right to bring a civil court action for damages.
  3. The Court found that McCann was not credible. She was contradicted by the other evidence. She "seemed unaffected by unsympathetic to the harm and suffering she caused Halley".

    1. The Court rejected the McCann's claim that her disclosures were carried out out of concern for her sister.
    2. The Court did not McCann's explanations that she made the disclosures to seek advice, out of concern for her sister or to seek comfort from her husband as this was inconsistent with the facts, including the failure of McCann to apologize:

      34. I do not believe the defendant's explanations. Neither the text between the defendant and her daughter nor the co-worker's evidence is produced at trial to support the "advice" rationale. The "concern" explanation does not match the evidence given by all witnesses about the nature of the relationship between the parties – one of hostility and dislike not one of support or nurturing. It does not match the evidence of the defendant's husband or brother. Neither was called into action to support either the defendant or plaintiff after being told. The husband says he did not know why he was told because he hardly knew the plaintiff – at first he did not recognize the name. They spoke of it only once for a few seconds. This contradicts the defendant's evidence that her husband asked her what was wrong because she was obviously upset. The brother, Fabion, reports the amusement with which he was told; he was not asked to help, intervene or to keep the information confidential. In support of this characterization of the defendant's attitude he offers a text message received from the defendant later in the fall inviting him to Christmas dinner "before his crazy sister" invited him.

      35. Finally, during the crisis facility's investigation the defendant initially denied any disclosure and ultimately only admitted telling her husband. Her failure to tell the investigators about the conversations with her daughter and brother suggests she had no legitimate explanation for doing so, knew it was wrong and tried to hide these two disclosures. I believe she invented the explanations for telling her daughter and brother well after the disclosures. At the time, I believe she was eager to tell the latest news about her sister to the rest of her family in order to embarrass not help her sister.
  4. The Court summarized the elements of the tort of publication of embarrassing private facts, citing Jane Doe 464533 v. N.D. 2016 ONSC 541, at paragraph 46 and the American Restatement (Second) of Torts (2010):.

    ...It occurs when someone "gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another... [and] the matter publicized or the act of the publication (a) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and (b) is not of legitimate concern to the public."
  5. The Court held that the elements of the tort had been established.

    1. The Court held that Halley's residency at the crisis facility qualified as an embarrassing private matter. The Court rejected the defence argument that only the diagnosis or treatment of Halley would have qualified (and not the mere fact that Halley was admitted to the facility, which was the only fact disclosed):

      26. The only information disclosed by McCann was that Halley was admitted to the crisis facility. The details of any diagnosis or treatment were not disclosed. McCann suggests this limited disclosure does not amount to an invasion of privacy and argues that she went out of her way to protect the privacy of the plaintiff during her shift.

      27. I disagree for at least four reasons. First, personal health information includes information about the providing of health care (s. 4(1)(b) PHIPA), not just the details of diagnosis or treatment. McCann's disclosure told others that the crisis facility was providing health care to Halley. "Visits" to the facility are expressly listed on the consent form as "confidential and/or personal health information". I agree with the opinion of the crisis facility director; the staff and facility are under a statutory and contractual duty to keep the provision of care private.

      28. Second, the names associated with the facility – Crisis Respite and Homes for Mental Health – provide some information about the mental health status or condition of the individuals who seek treatment there. Therefore the disclosure went beyond just the providing of care but gave some indication of the nature of the condition being treated. This health information was also required to be kept private.

      29. Third, Halley considered this a "private matter" – she did not tell anyone in her family and signed consents limiting the access to information to only two people. McCann saw the file and Dean's name on the paperwork. "Visits" to the facility are expressly listed on the consent form as "confidential and/or personal health information". McCann knew or should have known that this was a private matter and it was a secret to be kept from other family members. In her evidence and counsel submissions, McCann acknowledges the private nature of the stay when she submits that she did everything she could to protect Halley's privacy during her shift. She claims to have sought advice, stopped reading the file, remained out of sight and gave away her other shifts, all out of respect for Halley's privacy. These actions show that prior to disclosure she knew the stay was a private matter to be held in confidence.

      30. Finally, the confidentiality agreement signed by McCann included a broad undertaking to keep confidential "any information regarding any consumer" – this promise extends beyond just personal health information. It clearly prohibits the health care worker from discussing resident's information at all. The privacy policy requires a staff member to obtain the consumer's express consent before giving personal health information or personal information to a "family member who is not a substitute decision maker." The word "express" is in bold font. In sum, I find that the information disclosed was personal health information, was a private matter concerning the private life of Halley, and was information that McCann was required to keep confidential under her confidentiality agreement and the privacy policy. Disclosure fell below the privacy standard established by the legislation and the crisis facility and forms the basis for tort liability.
    2. The Court found the disclosure to be highly offensive in terms of being "highly offensive to a reasonable person", especially because the disclosure was made to family members, which the Court considered more offensive than if it had been disclosed to strangers:

      31. To establish liability the disclosure must be highly offensive to a reasonable person, an objective measure of the sensitivity of the disclosed information. It is only logical to interpret this requirement to mean a reasonable person in Halley's situation. That is a person who has suffered from depression and been admitted to a crisis facility, a person who took steps to ensure that treatment would remain a secret from her family. In this context, disclosure to her family is more offensive than to unknown strangers.

      32. It is obvious that health care information is sensitive, more sensitive than other personal information as evidenced by the legislature's adoption of specialized privacy legislation exclusively for it (PHIPA). Within the health care genre, mental health care information is even more sensitive than physical health information. I take judicial notice of the fact that mental health issues carry a stigma in our society. One only has to watch the countless public service ads that run on television to know that victims often suffer in silence rather than seek treatment, presumably to avoid the stigma assigned to mental illness. I have no trouble finding that a reasonable person would find disclosure of their need for crisis mental health treatment to be highly offensive
    3. The Court held that McCann's reasons for disclosing information were not of legitimate concern to the public.

      1. Firstly, the Court rejected McCann's explanations that she acted to seek advice, out of concern for her sister and to seek comfort from her husband.
      2. The Court held that even if those explanations were believable, they would not amount to "lawful justification" for the disclosure:

        36. Even if I believed these explanations (which I do not), they are not "lawful justification" for disclosure. Lawful justification is an expressly identified defence to the tort of intrusion on seclusion (supra para 14), and although not expressly articulated as a defence to the public disclosure tort, I am sure future cases will recognize it for this tort as well. In this case, the explanations provided are not lawful justification for releasing the information to either the daughter or the husband. Both crisis facility's privacy policy and the consents executed by Halley permit disclosures to those in the patient's "circle of care" when necessary for treatment of Halley. This "circle of care" is where McCann should have gone for advice and support if she needed some in order to deal with Halley's care. There is no justification for first going outside Halley's "circle of care" for advice or support in dealing with a patient.
      3. Also, the argument that the disclosure to the brother fell within the "legitimate concern to the public" defence was rejected:

        37. As for the third disclosure to her brother Fabion, McCann argues it falls within the "legitimate concern to the public" defence expressly recognized in the public disclosure tort. Even if I believed her which I do not, this explanation would still not justify the disclosure for two reasons. First the privacy policy and the consents executed by Halley at the time of admission addressed this very issue of family member disclosure – only two people were to be told and Fabion was not one of them. The privacy policy identifies limited circumstances for disclosure to family without consent. The only family members that may be told are those designated as substitute decision makers. The public concern exemption should only override the express wishes of the patient in circumstances where the public is at risk of harm or the medical opinion of the treating physician is that it would benefit the patient. As an intake worker, she was not qualified to decide the latter and there was no evidence provided in support of the former.
      4. The Court concluded as follows with respect to the defence of public concern disclosure:

        38. Finally, I find that the public concern component of the tort is an objective determination and not a subjective belief about the motives of the discloser. The use of the word "legitimate" invokes objective evaluation. There are no facts in evidence that support a legitimate need for any of these individuals to know. Two of the three barely know her and are not involved in her life in any way. Fabion has only limited contact with his sister and was known to be a friend of Dean's rather than his sister. Therefore, there is no justification for the disclosures made by McCann.
  6. The Court found that the sister had acted out of malice. It was held that the disclosures "were intended to diminish Halley in the eyes of her family and cause her embarrassment".
  7. The Court found that Halley had suffered compensable emotional harm within the meaning of Mustapha v. Culligan of Canada Ltd., [2008] SCC 27:

    41. General Damages for physiological harm, embarrassment and humiliation are appropriate in this case. McCann argues that Halley had a pre-existing condition; she was already anxious and depressed and no new damage was suffered. McCann relies on Mustapha v. Culligan of Canada Ltd., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 114, 2008 SCC 27 (CanLII) and claims that if new harm was suffered it is an extreme over reaction which disqualifies her from any damage award. McCann suggests only nominal damages of $300 per disclosure.

    42. I disagree. Actual emotional harm was suffered by Halley. The doctor's opinion confirms the worsening of her mental health condition following the public disclosure. In submissions during closing, McCann asks me to disregard the general practitioner's opinion but did not summon or cross examine the doctor's opinion nor supply contrary medical expert evidence. Therefore, I accept the opinion of Halley's doctor as to Halley's worsened anxiety and depression. It is the only medical expert evidence submitted at trial and was not contradicted.

    43. As to the claim that Halley's reaction is extreme and unusual, again I disagree. It is completely reasonable and foreseeable that the mental health of a patient already suffering from anxiety will deteriorate when someone releases mental health information about them. Unlike Mustapha the withdrawal of Halley is not an extreme, unpredictable or unusual reaction – it is completely reasonable and foreseeable. This is an obvious situation of "take your victim as you find them" – mental fragility was not an unknown or hidden condition which McCann could not have foreseen. McCann knew the mental health status of Halley before she committed the wrongful act and therefore she must take her victim as she found her and (I would add) as she knew her to be.
  8. The Court rejected the defence argument that Halley had failed to mitigate her losses by not checking herself into a crisis facility to deal with the fallout. The Court held that the circumstances were "a byproduct of McCann's humiliation and embarrassment" which made it more difficult for Halley to seek treatment by way of institutional care.
  9. The Court held that this was not a case for nominal damages.

    1. The Court awarded $7,500 for general damages.
    2. The Court held that in addition to general damages punitive damages covered the case better than aggravated damages. Halley was awarded $1,500 in punitive damages.

III. COMMENTARY

With respect, this decision is questionable on the issue of publicizing the embarrassing facts. In this case, Halley the Plaintiff only disclosed the embarrassing private facts to three people (to whom she was related) outside of the facility. In his seminal work on privacy torts, professor Prosser notes that "it has been agreed that it is no invasion to communicate that fact to the Plaintiff's employer, or to any other individual, or even to a small group, unless there is some breach of contract, trust or confidential relation which will afford an independent basis for relief": William L. Prosser, "Privacy" (1960) 48 Cal. L. Rev. 383, at pp. 393 – 394. See alsoLextron Inc. v. Travelers Cas. and Sur. Co., 257 F.Supp2d. 1041 (D. Colo. 2003).

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.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
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
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions