Ontario to Introduce New Measures to Protect Patient Privacy

The province intends to introduce amendments to the Personal Health Information Protection Act (PHIPA) that, if passed, would strengthen privacy rules, make it easier to prosecute offences and increase fines.

MORE:

http://news.ontario.ca/mohltc/en/2015/06/ontario-to-introduce-new-measures-to-protect-patient-privacy.html

Patients can sue hospitals for invasion of privacy, appeal court rules

The ruling upheld an earlier decision that said the province’s health privacy laws do not bar patients from seeking legal action against hospitals if their privacy is breached.

By: Olivia Carville Staff Reporter, Published on Wed Feb 18 2015
 

In a potentially precedent-setting decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal granted patients the right to sue hospitals over privacy breaches Wednesday.

The unanimous ruling said provincial health privacy laws are not a roadblock to patients who want to seek justice in the courts when their medical records are snooped into by hospital workers.

The decision comes on the heel of aStar investigation into health-related privacy violations and oversights in Ontario’s health privacy legislation.

“This case is a vindication for all of those victims the Star has been writing about,” said Michael Crystal, lawyer for the patients.

Wednesday’s ruling could have sweeping implications for the province’s 155 hospitals as it has given the green light to a multimillion-dollar privacy class action launched against Peterborough Regional Health Centre.

Peterborough hospital would not answer questions from the Star about whether it intends to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court of Canada, its last chance to get the case tossed out.

A massive privacy breach at the hospital between 2011 and 2012 saw hundreds of patient medical records snooped into and seven staff members fired. The breach included a domestic violence victim who was in hiding and 414 abortion files that were inappropriately accessed by a high profile anti-abortion campaigner.

A group of affected patients launched a $5.6-million privacy class action against the hospital, which in turn fought to have the case thrown out in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, arguing the courts had no jurisdiction over health-related privacy breaches.

The crux of the hospital’s argument was that health privacy violations were the sole domain of the privacy commissioner and that the Personal Health Information Protection Act (PHIPA) ousts the jurisdiction of the courts.

The Superior Court ruled against the hospital so it took the fight up to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the case Wednesday.

In its decision, the appeal court said health privacy legislation does not exclude the jurisdiction of the courts. Health privacy laws were tailored to handle “systemic issues rather than individual complaints,” the court said.

Peterborough Regional Health Centre declined to comment on the decision, saying “this matter remains in litigation before the courts.”

In a written statement to the Star Wednesday, a Peterborough hospital spokesperson said the center had a “zero tolerance policy with respect to inappropriate access to medical records.”

The hospital has 60 days to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Acting Information and Privacy Commissioner Brian Beamish told the Star he was “very pleased” with the ruling.

All patients who are victims of privacy violations should have the option of filing a complaint to the privacy office or taking civil action, Beamish said.

Under PHIPA, the privacy commissioner’s office acts as a watchdog over health institutions, ensuring they are protecting patient information and abiding with privacy laws.

It is not up to the privacy commissioner, however, to determine whether a patient should be awarded monetary damages. The commissioner only has the power to recommend the Attorney General launch a prosecution under PHIPA, which allows for fining individuals up to $50,000 and institutions up to $250,000 if found guilty.

Only one prosecution has been lodged so far under the act, which was introduced in 2004.

“This was a really important issue to get judicial guidance on,” Beamish said.

Ontario, once a leader in health-information privacy laws, now seems to be lagging behind as other provinces tighten up reporting. Earlier this year the Star found that eight other jurisdictions have passed laws to force hospitals to report breaches to the appropriate privacy body.

The heart of the Peterborough case is “snooping” — where hospital staff willfully break the law by accessing medical records when they have no authority to do so, such as in the recent Rob Ford privacy violations, he said.

Health care workers can only access a patient’s medical record if they are involved in their care and, Beamish said, the Peterborough breach “highlights how seriously this issue of snooping needs to be taken.”

The lead plaintiff of the Peterborough case is Erkenraadje Wensvoort, who was in hiding when she had an operation at the hospital. In the statement of claim, she alleges that she had left an abusive relationship after 51 years of marriage.

Wensvoort says she was told a staff member had opened her file without authorization and she feared her allegedly abusive ex-husband had “paid someone to access her patient records in order to find her,” the decision read.

There is no evidence linking Wesnvoort’s ex-husband to the inappropriate access of her record, according to Crystal, her lawyer.

The court awarded Wensvoort $24,000 for the legal fees associated with the appeal.

Crystal, who is the lawyer for all the Peterborough patients, said the court’s ruling grants patients “access to justice.”

“The highest court in Ontario has spoken and said invasion of personal health information is not something that is simply the domain of the privacy commissioner,” he said.

“Patients do not have to go through the administrative nooks and crannies of PHIPA legislation to achieve access to justice.”

If the latest decision is not appealed by the hospital, Crystal said the next step would be setting dates for a motion of certification for the Peterborough case.

Privacy commissioners from other parts of Canada told the Star earlier this year that they have noted a rising trend of health-care professionals snooping into private medical records with malicious intent.

Source: http://www.thestar.com/life/health_wellness/2015/02/18/patients-can-sue-hospitals-for-invasion-of-privacy-appeal-court-rules.html

Hundreds of hospital privacy violations go unreported

Privacy Commissioner Brian Beamish calls for changes in law to require hospitals to reveal breaches to his office.

Vince Talotta / Toronto Star Order this photo

 

Brian Beamish, Ontario's acting privacy commissioner, is calling for changes in legislation to make it harder for hospitals to handle privacy breaches internally without reporting them to the privacy office. 

By: Olivia Carville Staff Reporter, Published on Tue Jan 13 2015

 

Five staff members snooped into the medical records of 22 patients at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health last year.

A clinician from St. Michael’s Hospital posted an inappropriate comment on Facebook about a patient’s behaviour during a healthcare procedure.

While standing in line for pizza, a Toronto East General Hospital doctor chatted on his cellphone about the private details of a patient, unaware the patient’s relative was in the same line.

These are just three examples among what may be thousands of serious health-related privacy violations that go unreported each year to the provincial Information and Privacy Commissioner.

Nearly all of the 218 privacy breaches uncovered in documents obtained by the Star — which occurred at just eight of Toronto’s biggest health institutions — were not reported because of a legislative loophole that allows hospitals to handle such violations internally.

When the Star provided some examples of unreported cases to acting privacy commissioner Brian Beamish, he called for a legislative change to force hospitals to report serious breaches of personal health information.

“I definitely think it’s worth looking at. People are very protective of their health information, and when this type of thing happens it’s a very personal intrusion — people feel violated,” Beamish said.

Michael Crystal, a lawyer currently representing thousands of patients in five major privacy class actions against Ontario hospitals, backed the commissioner’s call for legislative change.

“This is a very, very significant problem that is common in many Ontario hospitals,” he said.

Privacy breaches can range from loose lips in the coffee line to more odious examples, where hospital employees maliciously access sensitive medical information relating to abortions, suicide attempts or queries into sexual re-assignment surgery, Crystal said.

Some of Crystal’s clients have been “devastated” to learn that their records were inappropriately accessed, he said.

One patient was in hiding from her abusive husband and believed he had bribed a hospital employee to access her personal information and learn which shelter she was staying in. Some of Crystal’s clients have even been reluctant to return to the hospital for much-needed care after being told that staff members had looked at their records without authorization.

Crystal said it should be “mandatory for hospitals to report all privacy leaks,” especially as the aging population grows more dependent upon healthcare providers.

Under the Personal Health Information Protection Act (PHIPA) hospitals may handle privacy violations internally, including disciplining and sometimes sacking staff members, without alerting the commission.

The three serious privacy breaches listed above all resulted in disciplinary action. Four of the snooping staff members from CAMH were suspended without pay, the documents show. A fifth received a disciplinary letter.

If hospitals were obligated under law to report privacy violations, the commission would be able to identify trends, investigate specific areas of concern and help hospitals prevent future incidents, Beamish said.

There are 155 hospitals in Ontario, and every year the commission receives roughly 400 notifications of health-related privacy breaches.

The Star’s request under the Freedom of Information Act unveiled 218 violations in just eight Toronto institutions, so “the math tells you [the number of unreported violations] is going to be in the thousands,” Beamish said.

Last year, the Star unveiled two major hospital privacy breach cases involving thousands of patients. In one case, hospitals inappropriately provided patient information to baby photographers. In another, hospitals were handing out patient contact information to RESP marketers. The commission was notified of both of these privacy breaches, probably because they affected thousands of patients and because the hospitals were seeking guidance as to how to respond, Beamish said.

A St. Michael’s Hospital spokesperson said in the Facebook incident, the commission wasn’t notified because “we consult with the privacy commissioner’s office as guidance is required … or to ensure we are in continuing compliance with the law.” The hospital didn’t feel it needed such advice in this case.

In the documents obtained by the Star, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre reported 27 privacy breaches where patient information was either stolen, lost, provided to the wrong people or disclosed without consent — and it notified the commission of none.

In one case, an employee disclosed a patient’s prognosis to the person’s estranged children, without consent, and in another the parents of an infant arrived at the neonatal intensive care unit carrying a different baby’s medical report.

Toronto East General Hospital reported 16 privacy violations whereby personal health information was inappropriately accessed or shared without consent. It notified the commission on only two occasions.

The hospital’s unreported incidents included the clinician who discussed a patient’s treatment options while waiting for pizza, an employee who asked a colleague to access the records of a friend, and a staff member who called the wrong family to tell them to come to the hospital to say goodbye to a “declining patient.”

A Star review found the majority of the 218 hospital privacy breaches were the result of genuine human error, but one in five cases were intentional and resulted in serious disciplinary action, the documents show.

Beamish said such violations, where clinicians “knew they shouldn’t be doing what they were doing and they still went ahead and did it anyway,” were the worst.

He was aware of one “love triangle” case where a nurse accessed the medical records of her ex-boyfriend’s new partner, and others where health professionals accessed colleagues’ and neighbours’ records out of curiosity.

Two similar, high-profile examples are that of former mayor Rob Ford, whose medical records were improperly read by hospital staff after his shocking cancer diagnosis, and the dozen staff members at Brampton Civic Hospital who were caught prying into the medical file of a 20-year-old man who committed suicide under hospital care.

Beamish fears that if such breaches aren’t contained, the public might lose confidence in the health sector’s ability to protect confidential information in the future.

This could lead to patients withholding information from doctors and hinder public acceptance of a shift toward electronic health records.

Online health records could be very beneficial to patients, but “people need to have confidence in the system,” he said.

Medical records are “incredibly personal” and hospitals should give as much prominence to protecting privacy as they do to hygiene campaigns, Beamish said.

“You can see a lot of signs and posters about making sure you wash your hands in hospitals, but they should take that same approach for privacy,” he said.

The University Health Network (UHN), which is responsible for four major hospitals in Toronto, reported 132 privacy incidents in 2014.

These included giving patients wristbands with the wrong identification, a staff member leaving a “detailed” message for a patient on the wrong voicemail, and the posting of two images to UHN’s public Facebook album containing patient names and medical record numbers.

Other examples:

UHN called a funeral home to ask them to search the morgue for a deceased patient’s misplaced medical chart

A clinical trial investigator unintentionally hit “reply all” on a confidential email, sending it to non-hospital staff

A staff member disclosed the date and time of a hospital appointment to the patient’s employer.

Health-related privacy violations are governed under PHIPA, legislation that allows for fining individuals up to $50,000 and institutions up to $250,000 if found guilty.

Only one prosecution has been logged so far under the act, which was introduced in 2004, and last year Beamish told the Star he wanted serious breaches to result in more prosecutions to deter nosy health professionals.

Since then, the commission has met with the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care to discuss the issue and work out who is responsible for “getting the prosecutions going,” Beamish said.

He hopes to have a prosecution plan in place within the next few months.

Minister of Health and Long Term Care Dr. Eric Hoskins said last year’s election stalled the government’s attempt to pass the Electronic Personal Health Information Act, legislation that would further safeguard patient information.

“We promised during that election to reintroduce the bill, and we’ll be doing just that,” he told the Star via email.

The new legislation would provide considerable opportunities to strengthen privacy protection over health records.

“Even one privacy breach is too many, and we will continue to work across the health sector to ensure that the personal health information of Ontarians is protected,” Hoskins said.

Olivia Carville can be reached at ocarville@thestar.ca 


Source: http://www.thestar.com/life/health_wellness/2015/01/13/hundreds_of_hospital_privacy_violations_go_unreported.html#
 

Canada: Privacy Law Litigation In Ontario - From The Bank To The Hospital And Beyond

Last Updated: September 29 2014

Article by Kelly L Friedman and Jennifer P. Saville

Davis LLP

 

Health information is generally regarded as among the most sensitive of personal information. Even members of the Millennial Generation, who regularly share details of their personal lives on social media, are troubled by the thought of strangers accessing the intimate details of their health histories.

There has been a string of data breaches in the health sector recently, some breaches due to employee carelessness, some due to intentional employee behaviour and some due to malicious cyber-attacks. What recourse does an Ontario patient have when his or her personal health information is unlawfully accessed or distributed? The answer used to be clear that a patient whose privacy rights were violated had no immediate access to the courts, but the patient could make a complaint to the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (the "Privacy Commissioner"). For the first time, a case now pending before the Ontario Court of Appeal raises the question of whether a patient-victim of a privacy breach can access the Ontario courts as well as the mechanisms provided in Ontario's health sector privacy legislation.

Ontario now recognizes a cause of action for breach of privacy. In 2012, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in Jones v Tsige and explicitly recognized a common law tort for breach of privacy in Ontario. Prior to that decision, there had been no common law cause of action for invasion of privacy recognized in Canadian law. Other provinces, such as Nova Scotia, have left the door open to follow Ontario's lead.¹ In contrast, the courts of British Columbia have explicitly stated that there is no common law tort of invasion of privacy in that province.² This leaves citizens in British Columbia to rely solely on statutory rights of action.³

While it may seem like just an esoteric legal question whether one's right of action is based on the common law or statute, the answer to this question actually has very real, practical implications for patients, health care providers and the insurers of health care providers in Ontario.

This post provides an overview of privacy litigation in Ontario and examines the important questions that are pending in Ontario today with respect to privacy violations in the health care sector.

The Tort of Intrusion Upon Seclusion

Traditionally in Ontario, there was no private cause of action for breach of privacy. A person who alleged breach of privacy was restricted to following the statutory procedures enacted in privacy legislation.

The Ontario Court of Appeal changed the law of privacy in Ontario in 2012 when it confirmed, in Jones v. Tsige, 2012 ONCA 32 (CanLII), that "intrusion upon seclusion" is a valid cause of action in Ontario. In this case the plaintiff, a bank employee, alleged that her privacy rights had been breached by another bank employee. The issue before the Court of Appeal was whether Ontario law recognized a right to bring a civil action for damages for the invasion of personal privacy, or whether the plaintiff's only remedy was to bring a complaint to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, SC 2000, c 5 ("PIPEDA").
In Jones v Tsige, the Court of Appeal expanded the common law and recognized the existence of a right of action for privacy violations that involve "intrusion upon seclusion". To establish intrusion upon seclusion, three key elements must be satisfied:

1. The defendant's conduct must be intentional, which includes acts of recklessness;
2. The defendant must have invaded, without lawful justification, the plaintiff's private affairs or concerns; and
3. A reasonable person would regard the invasion as highly offensive causing distress, humiliation or anguish.

Notably, proof of actual loss flowing from the breach is not an element of the cause of action for intrusion upon seclusion. This is important because, generally, to sustain a law suit in Ontario, a claimant needs to assert the breach of a recognized legal right or obligation and demonstrate that he or she has suffered a quantifiable loss as a result of the breach. Not so for intrusion upon seclusion. The Court of Appeal held that a victim of invasion of privacy could collect monetary damages without having suffered a quantifiable loss. Because damages will be for "moral" harm, the Court of Appeal capped the amount of damages at $20,000, but left open the possibility of awarding aggravated or punitive damages in exceptional cases.

Ontario's recognition of the tort of intrusion upon seclusion has made Ontario a key jurisdiction in which to launch class actions for data breaches. For instance, if the personal information of 50 people is improperly accessed, a class of those 50 people can launch a class action and possibly recover a million dollars (not taking into account aggravated or punitive damages) just by proving the invasion of privacy, with no requirement to prove individual losses to class members. In fact, a class action has already been certified in the banking context for inclusion upon seclusion. In Evans v The Bank of Nova Scotia, 2014 ONSC 2135 (CanLII) ("Evans"), an Ontario court certified a class action lawsuit where a rogue bank employee accessed personal banking information from 643 of the bank's clients for fraudulent purposes.

In Jones v Tsige, Jones did not sue the employer bank, just the rogue employee. However, the plaintiff in Evans seeks to impose vicarious liability on the employer for invasion of privacy by one of its employees. When the case goes to trial, at issue will be whether the employer bank took adequate precautions to protect clients' personal information from misuse by the bank's employees. Specifically, the court will be called upon to consider the standard of care which is owed by a bank to its clients with respect to safeguarding personal information from wrongful access by employees. This question gives rise to an interesting privacy conundrum with which the court will have to grapple: any obligation on an employer to protect personal information by monitoring its employees is likely to quickly bump up against an employer's corresponding obligation not to breach the reasonable expectations of privacy of the employees themselves.

Expanding the Tort of Intrusion Upon Seclusion to the Health Care Sector

Recently, the media has reported a string of violations of personal information held by health care facilities in Ontario. As a result (as one would expect in the wake of Jones v Tsige), the health care facilities have come into the sights of plaintiffs' class action lawyers.

In Hopkins v Kay, 2014 ONSC 321 (CanLII), patients from the Peterborough Regional Health Centre (the "Hospital") launched a $5.6 million class action lawsuit against the Hospital alleging that approximately 280 patient records were intentionally and unlawfully accessed and disseminated to third parties without the patients' consent.

The Hospital, in response, brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' claim on the basis that it did not disclose a cause of action. The Hospital argued that the claim was precluded by the Personal Health Information Protection Act , 2004, SO 2004, c 3, Sch A ("PHIPA") because the legislature intended PHIPA to be a comprehensive code that displaces any common law cause of action, including intrusion upon seclusion. Accordingly, the Hospital's contention is that the plaintiffs' only recourse is to bring a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner.
The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the Hospital's motion to strike, concluding that it was not plain and obvious that the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action. The Court's decision is under appeal, with the Court of Appeal expected to hear argument on December 15, 2014.

Ontario's Personal Health Information Protection Act

PHIPA is Ontario's privacy legislation that sets out the requirements that health information custodians must follow when collecting, using and disclosing personal health information.

Part VI of PHIPA creates a comprehensive administrative scheme for the enforcement of the Act. Where a person believes that someone has breached a provision of PHIPA, the person may bring a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner. PHIPA gives the Privacy Commissioner discretion to determine whether or not to investigate the complaint. Upon completing an investigation (if the Privacy Commissioner chooses to investigate), the Privacy Commissioner may issue an order directing the person(s) who contravened PHIPA to take a variety of steps, including requiring a health information custodian to cease or implement certain practices.

PHIPA also creates a statutory right of action. Under PHIPA, a person may start a civil proceeding for damages for actual harm that the person has suffered as a result of the contravention of PHIPA, but only after the Privacy Commissioner has issued a final order. PHIPA gives the court the jurisdiction to hear the claim and make a damages award, limiting damages for mental anguish to $10,000. The statutory right of action has three important elements when compared to the test for the tort of intrusion upon seclusion:

1. The complainant must have suffered "actual harm" (whereas proof of harm is not required for the common law tort);

2. The right of action only exists after the Privacy Commissioner has issued a final order (whereas there is no such prerequisite to starting an action for the common law tort); and

3. Mental anguish damages are limited to $10,000 (whereas the Ontario Court of Appeal contemplated damages up to $20,000 for reasonable distress, humiliation or anguish).

When Does a Statutory Scheme Foreclose a Common Law Right of Action?

The issue before the Court of Appeal in Hopkins v Kay will be whether PHIPA precludes a private right of action for the tort of intrusion upon seclusion, that is, whether the complainant must use the mechanism in PHIPA and only that mechanism.⁴

This case offers the Court of Appeal the opportunity to grapple with the age-old question of how to balance the role of the Legislature with the role of the judiciary. It is uncontested that a role of the Legislature is to make laws, while a role of the judiciary is to interpret legislation and enforce it. That said, courts also have the jurisdiction to adapt the common law in a manner consistent with the changing needs of society. The issue for the Court of Appeal will be whether the legislative intention underlying PHIPA is for PHIPA to provide the only remedies for data breaches of personal health information, or whether extending the scope of the tort of intrusion upon seclusion to cover data breaches of personal health information constitutes an appropriate step in the development of the common law in Ontario.

PHIPA and Intrusion Upon Seclusion: Can They Co-Exist?

The Acting Commissioner, Brian Beamish, has said that the Office of the Commissioner will appear as an intervenor before the Court of Appeal and will argue that PHIPA does not prevent courts from hearing cases related to personal health information violations.

While it remains to be seen what the Court of Appeal will decide, it seems that the enforcement scheme in PHIPA can exist simultaneously with the tort of intrusion upon seclusion. When the purpose and the provisions of PHIPA are examined as a whole, it does not appear that the Legislature's intent was to displace the common law, particularly when we consider the state of the common law at the time of the enactment of the statute. PHIPA came into effect on November 1, 2004 – eight years before the Court of Appeal's decision in Jones v Tsige. When the legislation was originally enacted, there was no common law tort for breach of privacy. Accordingly, the legislation did not take away any rights otherwise existing at common law. Rather, the legislation was additive in the sense that the Legislature gave complainants a remedy where none existed at common law.

A statutory claim under PHIPA is quite different from a claim that can be brought for intrusion upon seclusion. To recover damages under PHIPA, a complainant must be able to prove that he or she suffered actual harm. If the court determines that the breach of PHIPA was willful or reckless, the court may include damages for mental anguish, capped at $10,000.

In contrast, proof of harm is not an element of the common law action for intrusion upon seclusion. The claimant only has to show that: 1) the defendant's conduct was intentional; 2) the defendant invaded, without lawful justification, the person's private affairs or concerns; and 3) a reasonable person would regard the invasion as highly offensive. If these three elements can be established, the plaintiff is entitled to damages of up to $20,000, and may be able to recover aggravated or punitive damages in exceptional circumstances.

What Are the Ramifications of Expanding the Scope of Intrusion upon Seclusion to the Health Care Sector?

The outcome of the pending appeal of the motion to strike the common law claim in Hopkins v Kay will set a legal precedent for future data breaches involving personal health information. There are currently at least two other cases involving improperly accessed patient information that are waiting on the Court of Appeal's decision. A $412 million class action lawsuit has been launched against the Rouge Valley Health System after parents alleged that their personal information was sold to a third party by two hospital employees. Similarly, a data breach occurred at the Sault Area Hospital when an employee inappropriately accessed patients' medical records.

If the action is allowed to proceed to trial on the common law tort, the outcome of Hopkins v Kay may have sweeping implications for the vicarious liability of employers for their employees' actions. The issue of vicarious liability was not dealt with by the court in Jones v Tsige because the plaintiff sued the employee directly, not the employer bank. In Hopkins v Kay, the plaintiff class members have named both the hospital and the employees as defendants. As mentioned above, the issue of vicarious liability for privacy breaches committed by employees is also at issue in Evans. Whether one or both of these cases proceed to trial, and in which order, remains to be seen. Both of these cases ask the court to consider the steps an employer should take to prevent an intentional or reckless privacy violation.

How Employers Can Mitigate the Risk of a Data Breach by Their Employees

Employers should ensure that employees are properly trained on governing privacy legislation and internal data security policies, and that such policies are enforced and continually reinforced. However, it is uncertain whether policies and training will be sufficient to protect an employer from vicarious liability in the event that a data breach occurs. Organizations should use encryption and other advanced technologies where possible. They should have strict access controls, which only allow those in the category of "need to know" to access sensitive records. A data breach vulnerability audit can be commissioned to point out a particular facility's vulnerabilities and recommend practices and technology to address identified vulnerabilities. Cyber-liability insurance may be one way to cover losses arising from data breach. However, an insurance company will certainly perform an audit before providing coverage to make sure the employer is taking appropriate steps to reduce the chances of the insurer having to pay out on the cyber-liability policy. As well, reckless behaviour will no doubt have the insurer invoking an exclusion in the cyber-liability policy to deny coverage.

Source: http://www.mondaq.com/canada/x/342806/Civil+Law/Privacy+Law+Litigation+in+Ontario+From+the+Bank+to+the+Hospital+and+Beyond