Class action alleges Peoples Trust Company breached privacy laws in BC, Manitoba, NL, Sask.
The British Columbia Supreme Court allowed an application to amend a certification order to add a common issue and a subclass relating to alleged violations of privacy statutes in BC, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Newfoundland and Labrador.
In Tucci v Peoples Trust Company, 2025 BCSC 816, the plaintiff filed three applications against the defendant, Peoples Trust Company. The first application wanted to amend the certification order under s. 8(3) of BC’s Class Proceedings Act, 1996.
The first application sought to add a common issue regarding alleged violations of s. 1(1) of BC’s Privacy Act, 1996; ss. 2(1) and 2(2) of Manitoba’s Privacy Act; s. 2 of Saskatchewan’s Privacy Act, 1978; and s. 3(1) of NL’s Privacy Act, 1990.
This application also aimed to add a privacy acts subclass, covering residents in BC, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, or NL:
The second application requested the disclosure of certain documents, while the third application wanted to add a specific representative plaintiff for the privacy acts subclass.
At the motion hearing, the parties resolved the second application regarding the disclosure of documents after the plaintiff’s counsel clarified the scope of the documents requested.
The Supreme Court of British Columbia allowed the application. The court agreed to amend the certification order to add the requested common issue and subclass and decided to add the specified representative plaintiff for the privacy acts subclass.
The court ruled that the plaintiff’s pleadings included sufficient grounds to support a claim of statutory tort for a breach of privacy under BC’s privacy legislation and claims under the privacy laws of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and NL.
The court held that the pleadings referred to breaches of various personal information protection laws, which were relevant to the claim under BC’s privacy legislation in terms of deciding the reasonable expectations when personal information was provided and whether the defendant’s conduct amounted to a wilful privacy violation.
The court determined that the original pleadings described the defendant’s allegedly wrongful conduct. Specifically, the pleadings included claims that the defendant was wilfully reckless in handling the class members’ personal information.
Next, the court found that the proposed additional common issue was not prejudicial to the defendant, given that it fell within the factual framework initially pleaded. The court said the common issue did not expand the scope or fundamentally change the claim’s nature.
Regarding the issue of commonality, the court rejected the defendant’s argument that it should refuse to certify the claim under Manitoba’s privacy law, which requires a substantial violation rather than a wilful violation.
The court noted that previous rulings – such as Douez v Facebook, Inc., 2022 BCSC 914 – have found that the court can adjudicate the statutory torts in BC, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and NL together.
Lastly, the court found that the materials supported the proposed representative plaintiff’s qualification for the Privacy Acts subclass and noted that the defendant raised no issues regarding his qualifications.
