Create
Learn
Share

Case 2

rename
imissyou419's version from 2017-12-17 02:48

Section

Question Answer
Sharpe Estate v. Northwestern General Hospital- Mr. Sharpe died of AIDS after receiving blood transfusions at Hospital that Canadian Cross Society had supplied
- issue was whether Society's blood donor list was confidential, and thus met the 1st requirement for privileging the document
- trial judge held that list was not confidential
- society appealed this
- appealed dismissed, divisional court held that no relationship or expectation of confidentiality ever exited between Society and its blood donors; no written or verbal agreement with donors
- Society pointed to statement of confidentiality in its policies
- court said society's policy reflected the organization's perspective rather than the legal status of the blood donor list
- no evidence that donors would refuse to give blood if their info was not protected or that failing to protect donor info would undermine credibility of Canadian donor system
- even if donor list was confidential, Society's claim for privilege would fail on other grounds
R. v. Gruenke- accused prior to trial admitted her role in the crime to lay counsellor and pastor
- trial judge ruled that both lay counsellor and pastor were required to testify and accused's statements to them were admissible in evidence
- accused convicted, appealed on grounds that her statements should have been privileged
- SCC noted that courts had not as a matter of practice, required clergy to disclose confidential religious communications; emphasized that communications should not be automatically privileged
- All evidence relevant to a case is admissible so policy reasons required to justify the recognition of a class privilege for religious communications would have to be as compelling as those that support solicitor/client
- extending blanket class privilege could not be justified, religious communication had to be assessed on case-by-case basis under 4 part test
- the statements were not made to an ordained priest or minister and did not constitute a formal religious confession did not preclude the possibility of their being privileged
- SCC held that accused statements to lay counsellor and pastor did not even meet the first requirement, made with expectation of confidentiality
- accused's statement and behaviour - and not the lack of formal practice of confession in the accused's church indicated that statements were made more to relieve the accused's stress than for religious or spiritual purposes
- so accused could not have had an expectation of confidentiality therefore no privilege
R. v. O'Connor- SCC provided framework that sought to balance competing interests of the victim and accused
- Court distinguished b/w info in Crown's procession and in 3rd party procession i.e. physician, counsellor, women's shelter
- information including confidental medical and counselling records in Crown's procession had to be disclosed to the defence
- Information in 3rd party possession was not subject to automatic disclosure to defence
- court had to balance the victim's right to privacy and equality with the accused's Charter rights
- O'Connor did not adequately protect privacy and equality interests of victim and discourage them from reporting crimes and seek treatment
- amendments to criminal cases involving designated sexual offences
Tadros v. Peel Regional Police Service- Peel Police had previously charged Tadros with sexual offence based on allegations made by children in his licensed group home, charges withdrawn
- Tadros signed Toronto police authorization form requesting criminal records search and vulnerable persons search for employment
- Toronto police contacted Peel police who forwarded the info about the 8 withdrawn charges
- Toronto police then contacted the job agencies indicating reference checks completed and Tadros had summary sheet
- Neither the Peel nor Toronto police disclosed the info to prospective employers of Tadros but he alleged that at least one agency learned of the withdrawn charges
- Tadros alleged that the inclusion of the charges in the vulnerable persons search led to his employment difficulties in the group home field
- Tadro's lawyers requested Peel police withhold info about the withdrawn charges and destroy the underlying records
- Peel police refused and Tadros obtained injunction, Peel police appealed
- court of appealed set aside injunction,
1. peel police disclosed info about the withdrawn charges based on authorization forms that Tadros had signed,
2. MFIPPA authorized disclosure of personal info with a person's consent,
3. info about the withdrawn charges were based on what occurred in a public court and did not constitute a search or seizure under the Charter.
4. sharing of info b/w police forces about public prosecution does not infringe Charter
A Complaint of the Provincial Medical Board Against Dr. Eric Hansen, Under the Nova Scotia Medical Act, February 18, 1996- Dr. Hansen learned former patient was the complaint in a sexual assault trial and was concerned that due to her psychiatric condition, the patient may have honestly believed she had been assaulted when she had not
- Dr. Hansen did not attend trial, contact the patient, Crown or defence counsel
- Hansen contact Crown, who in turn had duty to disclose Hansen's concerns to defence counsel
- Defence counsel obtained order for production of patient's psychiatric file and new trial was ordered
- Before new trial, accused pled guilty
- Patient complained to College about Hansen's breach of confidentality
- College found Hansen had not made a careful accessment of the facts and did not have a strong basis for concluding that the patient might have testified falsely, his incompetence = professional misconduct and suspended his license for 3 months
- College said physician may justifiably breach confidentiality only after conducting a thorough assessment of all the facts, which includes DIRECT CONTACT with the patient
- if physician concludes HIGHLY PROBABLE that a serious miscarriage of justice has occurred, then can disclose
- Dr. Hansen appealed College's decision but settled with Medical Board before hearing. He agreed to finding of professional misconduct and a 2 month suspension
Hill v. Johnson- Plaintiff was male friend of Dr. Linton and as a favour Dr. Linton agreed to refill plaintiff's prescription for migraine med
- Dr. Linton did not have prescription pad at home, she assisted plaintiff in creating a prescription form on the computer
- plaintiff then brought form to Dr. Linton's house, where she signed it before going abroad for holidays
- Pharmacist knew that Dr. Linton was an OB/GYN became suspicious given that plaintiff was male and form was computer generated
- Pharmacist called Dr. Linton's office and was informed by her nurse that Dr. Linton was on holidays in Europe and that she always wrote out prescriptions by hand
- Pharmacist sent a strongly-worded warning to local pharmacists about plaintiff's suspicious prescription
- Plaintiff sued pharmacist in defamation
- Court held that the warning was defamatory but concluded that pharmacist could raise defence of qualified privilege - pharmacist had duty to prevent the misuse of prescription and communicated her concern to other pharmacists who had a duty to receive this info
- While pharmacist's reaction may have been excessive, she honestly and reasonably believed that prescription had been forged
- court rejected plaintiff's contention that pharmacist had acted with malice
Smith v. Jones- psychiatrist interviewed the accused at the request of his criminal lawyer
- accused confessed to psychiatrist that he had committed crime and described his plan to kidnap, rape, and kill prostitutes upon his release with a detailed plan
- psychiatrist told lawyer that the accused was dangerous and would likely commit future crimes
- accused pled guilty to assault charges, but psychiatrist concern were not addressed at the sentence hearing
- psychiatrist sought a declaration allowing him to disclose the privileged info in the interest of public safety
- SCC stated that danger to public safety may in appropriate circumstances justify setting aside solicitor/client privilege -> there must be a clear risk of imminent serious bodily harm or death to an identifiable person or group
- SCC upheld the psychiatrist's request for declaration authorizing disclosure
- Court qualified both the immediacy and harm requirements - immediacy - the thread need only created a sense of urgency, even if urgency will arise sometime in the future
- serious psychological harm may constitute serious bodily harm if it substantially interferes with the complainant's health or well-being
memorize