Ari v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, (2015) 379 B.C.A.C. 187 (CA)

• Judge: Lowry, Groberman and Garson, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: October 13, 2014
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (2015), 379 B.C.A.C. 187 (CA);2015 BCCA 468

Ari v. ICBC (2015), 379 B.C.A.C. 187 (CA);

    654 W.A.C. 187

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] B.C.A.C. TBEd. NO.026

Ufuk Ari (appellant/respondent on cross-appeal/plaintiff) v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (respondent/appellant on cross-appeal/defendant)

(CA41125; 2015 BCCA 468)

Indexed As: Ari v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Lowry, Groberman and Garson, JJ.A.

November 17, 2015.

Summary:

An employee of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) improperly accessed the personal information of about 65 ICBC customers. One of those customers (the plaintiff) commenced a proposed class action for damages for breach of privacy based on: (1) a claim for a violation of privacy based on the employee's conduct, for which ICBC was said to be vicariously liable, brought under the Privacy Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 373; and (2) a claim that ICBC breached s. 30 of Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 165. Section 30 required a public body to protect personal information in its custody. The plaintiff contended that ICBC negligently performed the duty imposed on it by statute, and was liable in damages for that breach. ICBC applied to strike out the action pursuant to rule 9-5(1)(a) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules on the grounds that the action failed to disclose a justiciable cause of action.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2013] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1308, dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims against ICBC, except for the breach of privacy claim. The court ordered that the pleadings be amended to reflect the narrowed scope of the claim. The plaintiff appealed. ICBC cross-appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal. The question of vicarious liability could not be resolved on a pleadings motion. It was not plain and obvious the claim would fail. There was a comprehensive statutory framework for dealing with conduct breaching s. 30 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Therefore, a private law duty of care should not be recognized for public policy reasons.

Actions - Topic 1527

Cause of action - Creation of - By statute - By violation of statute - See paragraphs 33 to 63.

Master and Servant - Topic 3675

Liability of master for acts of servant - Torts - General - See paragraphs 21 to 32.

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to disclose a cause of action or defence - See paragraphs 21 to 32.

Torts - Topic 2530

Vicarious liability - Master and servant - Employer - Liability for acts of employees - See paragraphs 21 to 32.

Torts - Topic 5410

Invasion of privacy - General - Violation of privacy - Statutory tort - See paragraphs 21 to 32.

Torts - Topic 5544

Invasion of privacy - Collection and use of personal information - Actions - Statutory restrictions - See paragraphs 21 to 32.

Torts - Topic 5545

Invasion of privacy - Collection and use of personal information - Actions - Common law - See paragraphs 33 to 63.

Cases Noticed:

Carhoun & Sons Enterprises Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2015), 370 B.C.A.C. 283; 635 W.A.C. 283; 2015 BCCA 163, refd to. [para. 6].

Tangerine Financial Products Limited Partnership et al. v. Reeves Family Trust et al. (2015), 375 B.C.A.C. 294; 644 W.A.C. 294; 2015 BCCA 359, refd to. [para. 6].

Mohl v. University of British Columbia (2009), 271 B.C.A.C. 211; 458 W.A.C. 211; 2009 BCCA 249, refd to. [para. 9].

Hung v. Gardiner et al., [2002] B.C.T.C. 1234; 2002 BCSC 1234, affd. (2003), 184 B.C.A.C. 4; 302 W.A.C. 4; 2003 BCCA 257, refd to. [para. 9].

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 13].

British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. et al. (2011), 419 N.R. 1; 308 B.C.A.C. 1; 521 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 13].

P.A.B. v. Children's Foundation et al., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 534; 241 N.R. 266; 124 B.C.A.C. 119; 203 W.A.C. 119, refd to. [para. 16].

Saskatchewan Wheat Pool v. Canada, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 205; 45 N.R. 425; 143 D.L.R.(3d) 9, refd to. [para. 19].

K.L.B. et al. v. British Columbia et al., [2003] 2 S.C.R. 403; 309 N.R. 306; 187 B.C.A.C. 42; 307 W.A.C. 42; 2003 SCC 51, refd to. [para. 20].

Nelson and Byron Price & Assoc., Re (1981), 122 D.L.R.(3d) 340; 1981 CanLII 415 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Holland v. Saskatchewan et al., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 551; 376 N.R. 316; 311 Sask.R. 197; 428 W.A.C. 197; 2008 SCC 42, varying (2007), 299 Sask.R. 109; 408 W.A.C. 109; 2007 SKCA 18, refd to. [para. 40].

Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, [1978] A.C. 728 (H.L.), appld. [para. 44].

Cooper v. Hobart - see Cooper v. Registrar of Mortgage Brokers (B.C.) et al.

Cooper v. Registrar of Mortgage Brokers (B.C.) et al. (2001), 277 N.R. 113; 160 B.C.A.C. 268; 261 W.A.C. 268; 2001 SCC 79, appld. [para. 44].

Scheuneman v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) (2005), 337 N.R. 307; 2005 FCA 254, refd to. [para. 48].

Statutes Noticed:

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 165, sect. 30 [para. 11]; sect. 73(a) [para. 29].

Privacy Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 373, sect. 1 [para. 8].

Counsel:

G.J. Collette, for the appellant;

R.R. Hira, Q.C., and P.E. Waldkirch, for the respondent.

This appeal and cross-appeal were heard at Vancouver, B.C., on October 13, 2014, by Lowry, Groberman and Garson, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. Garson, J.A., delivered the following reasons for judgment for the court on November 17, 2015.