MMAR Mailout Update

Doobius1 said:

Theres some classic internet info. Who's correct?

Click to expand...

bigmanc said:

I haven't filed with a lawyer yet, almost 2 years and no movement. Not very satisfied with the representation so far. Worst case I do hours of research and do a claim myself. I still have all paperwork from privacy commissioner saying my privacy wasn't respected and harm could follow.

If I get 10 likes or so on this post il post pictures of entire report, il take it as requests

Click to expand...

cannadan said:

I must have been one of the first to complain....I was told by health Can....if I was having a problem with the mail out.
to call the privacy commissioner....so when I did the PC's office told me to call health Canada...I told them hey wait they told me to call you...
Then I was told If I wanted I could make a formal complaint.
Instead I registered with the law firm in the class action suit...

I got robbed....does that count. by a stranger...too but its a small town here with pop under 200

Click to expand...

1. Recognition by the Ontario Court of Appeal of a new tort for invasion of privacy in the 2012 landmark decision in Jones v Tsige[13] where the Court awarded $10,000 in damages to a man whose former wife, a bank employee, inappropriately accessed personal banking information about her ex-husband’s new partner 174 times. The Court imposed a cap of $20,000 where there has been no pecuniary loss, and although the possibility exists for punitive or aggravated damages on top of this amount, they would only arise in exceptional cases. It is important to note that this is a common law cause of action, separate and apart from any remedy under Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (“PIPEDA”) or other similar privacy legislation. It remains to be seen whether entities subject to PIPEDA or similar legislation will be subject to duties and remedies under both this new common law action and the relevant statute. Furthermore, this new tort will be available to plaintiffs in class actions alleging privacy breaches.
2. An award of $100,000 for punitive damages by the Quebec Court of Appeal in a 2010 decision[14] against Standard Life. The plaintiff had been receiving disability benefits and as a result of surveillance by Standard Life the investigators accidently recorded the plaintiff’s brother engaging in very active tasks which led to the termination of the plaintiff’s benefits.
3. A Federal Court decision in 2011[15] ordering a Canadian bank to pay damages based on a breach of the federal privacy legislation by one of its employees. Contrary to the bank’s policies, in response to a subpoena, the employee had provided private bank information to a customer’s ex-spouse who was involved in a contested divorce. Despite arguments challenging the cause of the complainant’s alleged “humiliation” being related to the privacy breach, the court found the breach warranted damages in the amount of $4,500, plus interest and costs.
4. An action in B.C.[16] by a business woman against her ex-husband, a doctor who accessed private information about her on an old home computer and published the information online and in emails. The B.C. Supreme Court awarded the plaintiff $20,000 for breach of privacy and defamation.
5. An action in the Federal Court of Canada in which a businessman was awarded $5,000 plus costs for humiliation arising from the provision of inaccurate credit information by a credit reporting agency.[17]
6. A fine of $750 under B.C.’s privacy law following a 2-week trial against a city councilor for giving CBC an internal privileged and confidential workplace harassment report by the local RCMP detachment.[18]