MMAR Mailout Update

bigmanc

Well-Known Member
Immediately after receiving the MMAR mailout i was offended. I knew without a doubt this was a breach of my privacy and a risk to my safety.

I then submitted a claim to the Privacy Commissioner of Ontario.

I received a update from the Privacy Commissioner of Canada on March 6th 2015.

Although it states only 339 of the 41,514 patients submitted complaints im glad im one of them.

The file goes back and foreth as if it were a dialogue. The OPC questioning HCs acts of how and why they did this. Its full of the common HC excuses. This is the best one "Well if we didnt label it correctly the patient wouldnt know it was coming from a Governing body and may not view it as important"although for more then a decade prior and tens of thousands of mailouts prior they used a address locator.

Although HC has appologized publicly they are still trying to protect themselves.

The OPC put alot of effort into this, the paper itself is of official quality. I would compare it to a thicker, older version of Canadian currency. Even got enough respect for a pen sgnature and not a stamp.

With all that aside. The OPC has investigated the incident and they have concluded that the matter of the 339 complaints is;
WELL-FOUNDED
 
Last edited:

The Hippy

Well-Known Member
Well I am listed on the class action lawsuit, but you say to do that as well. How is that different ?
 

doingdishes

Well-Known Member
Yes the mailout we all received.

I suggest filing a complaint with the privacy commission. https://www.priv.gc.ca/complaint-plainte/index_e.asp

They have done many interviews with HC and determined they breached our privacy. I'm only receiving this info in the mail because i filed a complaint.
i thought we were all in this. i registered for the one through John Conroy's website but I didn't file with the Government.
I will now.
Thanks @bigmanc
 

bigmanc

Well-Known Member
I threw out the envelope and paper work. Anyone got a scan of the info page?
From my letter "On November 19th, 2013, a total of 41,514 letters were sent to MMAP clients with the full program name openly visible through the widowed envolopes"
 

bigmanc

Well-Known Member
So to re-iterate; the OPC has found that Health Canada was guilty of breaching the Privacy Act and there investigation concluded it was well founded.

in my opinion, this is the begining of the lawsuit. They have been found guilty now they need to pay for damages.
 

The Hippy

Well-Known Member
From my letter "On November 19th, 2013, a total of 41,514 letters were sent to MMAP clients with the full program name openly visible through the widowed envolopes"
Yup they screwed us good with that....I pay for security and they give it away.
 

Joint Monster

Well-Known Member
So those who received this letter, part of the mmar, are required to file a complaint under the privacy act in order to receive a settlement?
 

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
So those who received this letter, part of the mmar, are required to file a complaint under the privacy act in order to receive a settlement?
I registered here just after it happened.
http://www.branchmacmaster.com/medical-marihuana/

MEDICAL MARIHUANA PRIVACY GAFFE CLASS ACTION

UPDATE – November 3, 2014
The Plaintiffs’ motion to certify the matter as a class action was filed on October 24, 2014. The motion seeks permission from the Federal Court for the matter to proceed as a class action and appoint certain representative plaintiffs. The Federal Government is required to file its responding materials by December 23, 2014. The Plaintiffs’ written argument will be required to be filed on March 20, 2015 and the Federal Government’s on April 19, 2015. We anticipate the certification motion will be heard by the Federal Court in May 2015. Click here to review the Plaintiff’s Motion seeking Certification and the supporting Affidavit of D. Robins.

The Plaintiffs also filed an Amended Statement of Claim on October 24, 2014. Click here to review a copy of the Amended Statement of Claim.

Finally, on July 24, 2014, the Honourable Mr. Justice Rennie of the Federal Court denied the Federal Government’s appeal of Madam Prothonotary Milczynski’s decision permitting the Plaintiffs to pursue the action using pseudonyms. The Court concluded that, among other things, privacy is “an important personal interest, in which there is a public interest in preservation. Privacy regarding use of medical marihuana is the central issue in the class proceedings. Identification as a plaintiff necessarily results in identification of the plaintiff as both a user of medical marihuana and as suffering from a serious illness”. Click here to review the Mr. Justice Rennie’s Order and Reasons for Judgment.
 

westcoast420

Well-Known Member
If you read up on the info on the branchmacmaster site you will find it says what I posted. Class participants are anyone who received the mail out. They still suggest you register with them tho which I have done.
 
Top