Case Report – BCCA says non parties get no notice of production motion despite privacy interest

26 Mar

Yesterday, the British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed an argument that various non-parties whose private communications had been intercepted by the RCMP should be given notice of a motion brought to compel production of the intercepts.

The production motion was brought by the Director of Civil Forfeiture in forfeiture proceedings. It appears to have been opposed by the defendants but not by the RCMP.

The motions judge held that notice ought to be given to the “objects of the interception” and adjourned the motion. He relied on Rule 44(5) of the B.C. Supreme Court Rules, which demands that persons “who may be affected” by an interlocutory order shall be given notice of motion.

The Court of Appeal held the motions judge had erred. It reasoned that the Rules’ third-party production provision – Rule 26(11) – is a complete code that governs the requirement to give notice of third-party production motions in British Columbia. This provision only requires notice to the third-party and “other parties” but not other persons “who may be affected.” The Court held that the general notice requirement in Rule 44(5) could not override the specific and more limited notice requirement in Rule 26(11).

Though the outcome of the appeal is based on interpretation, the Court also made some broad statements about the non-party privacy. It suggested that the Court ought to guard non-party privacy, even by ordering a two-stage hearing, but held that notice to non-parties would only lead to “unnecessary expense and complication” and would conflict with the Court’s mandate to “secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every proceeding on its merits.”

The issue of non-parties’ right to receive notice of production motions based on a privacy interest is significant and can arise whenever records subject to production contain non-party personal information. See Datatreasury for a recent example. This is the first Canadian case of which I’m aware with significant reasoning on the issue. If you are aware of any cases, Canadian or otherwise, please drop a comment or e-mail.

British Columbia (Director of Civil Forfeiture) v. Angel Acres Recreation and Festival Property Ltd., 2009 BCCA 124.

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Case Report – BCCA says non parties get no notice of production motion despite privacy interest”

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Case Report – FCA quashes order for failure to consider privacy interest of non-party « All About Information - February 13, 2010

    […] a very different take on non-party privacy and standing, see this decision of the British Columbia Court of […]

  2. Case Report – FCA quashes order for failure to consider privacy interest of non-party | eDiscovery Journal - February 15, 2010

    […] a very different take on non-party privacy and standing, see this decision of the British Columbia Court of […]

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: