British Columbia appeal court green-lights data breach class action lawsuit

British Columbia appeal court green-lights data breach class action lawsuit

The Supreme Court of British Columbia says a class action lawsuit could go to trial against a trust company in a 2013 data breech alleging negligence and breach of contract. In a unanimous decision earlier this month, 

B.C. The Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of a lower court certifying the action against the People's Trust for infringement on those grounds. Courts must certify class actions before proceeding. 

In the case of 12,000 customers 'names, addresses, email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, social insurance numbers, businesses, and credit card applicants, their mothers' birth names were copied. Account information was not stolen. 

The company failed to apply proper patches and software updates to the servers holding the database, the decision was also noted. 

The trust company could appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. It asked the appeals court to dismiss the suit on technical grounds. One of them was that its website included this limited liability clause: "Your use of this website is at your own risk." 

It stated that the trust company could not be liable for any loss due to several reasons, including loss of data. Whether that clause applies, a separate decision has to be made. 

What has happened with the court's ruling is mistaken for an emerging citizen of invasion of privacy or, legally, "intrusion into solitude". 

It was first recognized in 2012 by an Ontario court. Civilian trunks recognized in one province or territory binding on other provinces in the country. 

They are to be individually recognized by the courts in each jurisdiction or by provincial law. While the class action against the People's Trust originally involved an allegation of breach of confidentiality, B.C. The judge of the lower court removed them, saying that those provinces did not yet exist. 

Neither party appealed to the court of appeals to decide, so it should not comment. But it did. Justice Harvey Groberman wrote, "In some ways, it is unfortunate that no appeal was made against the decision of the lower court." He noted that B.C. 

The courts did not face the question directly. "In my view, the time has come for this Court to reassert its jurisdiction over the tyranny of privacy violations." 

Can be seen as an unnecessary concession to those who were recursive or highly sensitive to publicity, although I doubt it was an accurate reflection of reality, "he said." Today, personal data has created a shift in people's lives. 

Has played a significant role, and the failure to recognize at least some of the limited atrocities caused by breach of privacy can be seen by some. 

"The decision caught the eye of David Krebs, a Saskatchewan privacy lawyer at the Miller Thomson law firm. "This is a sign that Canadian privacy law is moving in a certain direction, a common law of privacy torture," he said in an interview Thursday. 

"This is another sign that intrusions on solitary torture exist in Canada," He said, perhaps lawyers need to sue companies in addition to negligence for data breaches. 

This should provide an additional basis. Halifax privacy attorney David Fraser of the McInnis Cooper law firm said the appeals court also supported the lower court's decision to remove the motion to sue the trust company for breach of trust, a data breach that was confidential. 

There was a breach of personal data held. The court said that to succeed the breach of trust action, it was necessary to prove that the trust company had misused this information, but there was no such evidence in the case.