IMS Health Canada Ltd. v. Information and Privacy Commissioner, (2003) 350 A.R. 390 (QB)

• Judge: Marceau, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: November 19, 2003
• Citations: (2003), 350 A.R. 390 (QB);2003 ABQB 1002

IMS Health v. Privacy Commr. (2003), 350 A.R. 390 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] A.R. TBEd. DE.106

In The Matter Of the Health Information Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. H-5

And In The Matter Of Order #H2002-003 of the Information and Privacy Commissioner dated March 19, 2003

IMS Health Canada, Limited (applicant) v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (respondent)

(0303 06949; 2003 ABQB 1002)

Indexed As: IMS Health Canada Ltd. v. Information and Privacy Commissioner

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Marceau, J.

December 5, 2003.

Summary:

The Information and Privacy Commissioner gave notice that he intended to investigate whether the Health Information Act permitted pharmacists and pharmacies to disclose health services provider information to IMS Health Canada Ltd. Following the Commissioner's investigation, the Commissioner issued an order directing that certain prescription information not be provided to IMS without the consent of the health care provider. IMS brought an application to quash the Commissioner's order. The Commissioner brought an application for: (1) an order striking out or summarily disposing of a portion of IMS's first ground of judicial review; and (2) directions with respect to the documents to be included in the Commissioner's return.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench declined to quash the first ground raised in IMS's application. The court gave directions with respect to the documents that should be contained in the Commissioner's return.

Administrative Law - Topic 5060

Judicial review - Certiorari - The record (incl. return) - What constitutes the "record" - The Information and Privacy Commissioner gave notice that he intended to investigate whether the Health Information Act permitted pharmacists and pharmacies to disclose health services provider information to IMS - Following the Commissioner's investigation, the Commissioner directed that certain prescription information not be provided to IMS without the consent of the health care provider - IMS brought an application to quash the Commissioner's order - The Commissioner omitted from his return any documents that pre-dated his notice to investigate - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that there had to be something in the decision to investigate that required explanation in order for the court to direct that documents from the pre-investigative stage be added to the Commissioner's return - In this case, the apparent singling out of IMS was something that might require an explanation and that explanation might be found in the documents which triggered the investigation steps - If the parties could not agree on the documents related to the triggering event, a further application for directions could be made to the court - See paragraphs 17 to 28.

Crown - Topic 7294

Examination of public documents - Freedom of information - Practice - Judicial review - [See Administrative Law - Topic 5060 ].

Cases Noticed:

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

Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc. - see Hunt v. T & N plc et al.

Hyundai Motor Co. et al. v. Canada et al. (1987), 14 F.T.R. 316 (T.D.), consd. [para. 15].

Counsel:

David Phillip Jones, Q.C. (de Villars Jones), for IMS Health Canada, Ltd.;

Richard B. Drewry, Q.C. (Emery Jamieson LLP), for the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

This application was heard on November 19, 2003, before Marceau, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following memorandum of decision on December 5, 2003.