Banking & Financial Services
Ontario court urges "business transaction" exemption be added to PIPEDA, grants order for disclosure
In the Matter of an Application Under Rules 14.05(3)(d), 2012 ONSC 2530, a decision issued on April 26, 2012, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted an order allowing the vendor financial institution to disclose personal information to the purchaser, pursuant to an asset purchase transaction.
In doing so, the court urged, effectively, for the implementation of "business transaction" provisions such as those found in the BC and Alberta PIPAs, stating:
It is evident from this long list of cases that Farley J. was prescient in suggesting that "this type of situation should be addressed to avoid unnecessary court applications." I join Farley J. in urging that a route be provided that will permit the disclosure of the necessary personal information in such circumstances as these to avoid wasting the court's time and the parties' funds (at para. 12). read more »
BCCA upholds ruling that disrespectful, inflammatory letter from employee's lawyer provided just cause
In Grewal v. Khalsa Credit Union, 2012 BCCA 56, the BC Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of a former branch manager at the Khalsa Credit Union.
In a May 2011 decision, the trial court had ruled that a disrespectful, inflammatory letter from the employee's lawyer had "tipped the balance" in favour of the employer having just cause for termination. The trial court's decision can be found here.
Ontario Court of Appeal recognizes tort of invasion of personal privacy in case involving two BMO employees
In a decision issued on January 18, 2012 - Jones v. Tsige, 2012 ONCA 32 - the Ontario Court of Appeal recognized the tort of invasion of personal privacy in case involving two BMO employees.
For more background on this case, see my May 9, 2011 post here: "Ontario Court of Appeal to consider tort of invasion of privacy in work context case".
It is a case concerning two employees of the Bank of Montreal who worked at different branches. Over the course of four years, one employee (the "Defendant") accessed the personal banking information of the other employee, who was also a customer of the bank (the "Plaintiff"), on 176 occasions.
Rather than filing a complaint with the federal privacy commissioner under PIPEDA, and ultimately going to the federal court for recourse, the Plaintiff sued the Defendant for the common law tort of invasion of privacy.
In its decision issued on March 23, 2011, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, citing precedent, ruled that there is no tort of invasion of privacy in Ontario.
The Ontario Court of Appeal will now have an opportunity to weigh in on this issue. read more »