Alberta's Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) applies to private sector organizations for the protection of personal information and to provide a right of access to an individual’s own personal information. But law firm Gowlings doesn't want the plaintiff, who sued them for egregious misconduct, to exercise this legislated right to seek her personal information from Gowlings.
After receiving confirmation that Gowlings obtained the plaintiff's credit report without her consent or knowledge, the plaintiff made a request to Gowlings pursuant to PIPA for access to her personal information within Gowlings' possession.
The plaintiff made her initial PIPA request to Gowlings on May 11, 2016, with a narrowed request on June 6, 2016 for a subset of records relating specifically to her credit and financial information (improperly) in Gowlings' possession.
Gowlings' response to the plaintiff was required by June 27, 2016 pursuant to PIPA, but no response was received. On June 29, 2016 the plaintiff had still not received a response from Gowlings and she informed them of their failure to respond to her request within the required timeframe.
The privacy officer for Gowlings replied to the plaintiff, stating he sent a request on June 21, 2016 to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC), seeking authorization to ignore the plaintiff's PIPA request for her personal information. He claimed he inadvertently forgot to send the plaintiff a copy of his correspondence to them.
Also on June 29, the plaintiff sent correspondence to OIPC with concerns about Gowlings' failure to provide a response within the required timeframe, and Gowlings' further failure to provide the plaintiff with a copy of Gowlings' correspondence to OIPC. The plaintiff also advised that her full formal complaint to OIPC would follow. Below is the plaintiff's preliminary notice of complaint to OIPC.
Attn: Jill Clayton
Office of the
Information and Privacy Commissioner
Via email to generalinfo@oipc.ab.ca
June 29, 2016
Dear Ms. Clayton:
This is a preliminary letter to advise you
of my concerns with the improper manner in which Gowling WLG (“Gowlings”) has
failed to respond to my request for my personal information in their possession
within the 45 day requirement to respond, pursuant to the Personal
Information Protection Act (PIPA). This is also further to Gowlings’
further failure to copy me on their correspondence they indicate they sent you
on June 21, 2016 in which they seek authorization to disregard my PIPA request,
which I only learned of today, June 29.
My further concerns with these issues and
the inaccuracies in Gowlings’ June 21 correspondence to you will follow in my
forthcoming OIPC review request with the prescribed form, however, given that Gowlings’
letter was sent to you more than a week ago without my knowledge, I felt it was
necessary to contact you immediately.
Please also note that I spoke to Christina
with your Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) this
morning and she searched for correspondence received from Gowlings and
confirmed to me that to date no such correspondence has been received from
Gowlings, so I am not sure of your status in receiving their correspondence and
anticipate you will now be able to review my within correspondence
concurrently.
PIPA Request Background
On May 11, 2016, by way of letter and
email to Gowlings privacy officer Michael Herman (attached), I made a PIPA
request for my personal records within Gowlings’ possession. This request
followed my conversation with Service Alberta, administrator of PIPA, regarding
Gowlings’ and, specifically, lawyers Megan L. McMahon and Taryn C. Burnett’s
improper obtaining of my credit report which was done without my consent or
knowledge. I became aware that Gowlings obtained my credit report when I saw
that a “hard” credit check by them appeared in a credit report I obtained.
Service Alberta advised me that Gowlings did not have authority to obtain my
credit report in the circumstances and informed me of the PIPA process for
requesting my personal information from Gowlings.
On June 6, 2016 I sent email
correspondence (attached) to Mr. Herman with a request for a narrowed subset of
records in Gowlings’ possession relating to the personal credit and financial
information Gowlings had (improperly) in their possession. I requested that
this narrowed subset of records be sent to me sooner than the original request
for all personal information, with a view to first obtaining the records
directly related to the improper credit check and then assessing whether
further personal information records would be required. Mr. Herman’s email
reply dated June 6, 2016 (attached) confirms he received this narrowed records
request.
Pursuant to the 45 day requirement for
Gowlings to respond to my PIPA request, Gowlings’ response to me was due two
days ago, on June 27, 2016. I sent an email to Mr. Herman confirming their
failure to respond to my request within the required timeframe. Mr. Herman
replied to my email, stating he sent a letter to OIPC, directly to you, dated
June 21, 2016, and attached said correspondence. Mr. Herman claimed he “forgot”
to send me a copy of the correspondence to you.
I note that Mr. Herman’s June 21
correspondence to you he “forgot” to send me is filled with incomplete and
inaccurate statements, in addition to completely irrelevant matters, in support
of his request for authorization to disregard my PIPA request for my personal
information in Gowlings’ possession. The actual purpose of Gowlings’ request to
disregard my PIPA request is to conceal evidence of their breach of PIPA, and
other Alberta legislation, related to their unlawful obtaining of my credit
report. This tactic is consistent with their ongoing unethical tactics toward
me, some of which I outline below as background.
I further note that Mr. Herman’s
correspondence to you fails to make any mention of my narrowed preliminary PIPA
request for records relating to my credit and financial information in
Gowlings’ possession. At this time, this is the extent of my personal
information I am seeking from Gowlings.
General Background
I am the plaintiff in a medical
malpractice action against defendant Dr. Peter Whidden, who injured me and
caused me to undergo multiple corrective surgeries. Megan McMahon is a
sometimes defence lawyer for the defendant Dr. Peter Whidden. Taryn Burnett is
a former lawyer for Dr. Whidden, who was removed from that role at
approximately the same time as their improper obtaining of my credit report in
April 2013. That medical malpractice action is still in progress within the
channels of the Canadian court system.
Throughout the course of the medical
malpractice action Ms. McMahon and Ms. Burnett engaged in ongoing egregious and
malicious harassment, defamation, misrepresentation, fraud, and abuse of
process, toward me, a self-represented person, to the point my doctor referred
me to the emergency upon noting health complications. Ms. McMahon and Ms. Burnett
also brought a variety of malicious and repetitive applications against me in
abuse of process in their desperate attempts to avoid the merits of my action
and conceal the truth, and inflict physical, emotional and financial harm on
me. All of their malicious applications against me were properly dismissed by
the court. Mr. Herman’s slanted and inaccurate account of these matters would
have you believe otherwise.
Ms. McMahon and Ms. Burnett’s egregious
tactics and misconduct and their resulting damages to me necessitated that I
bring a lawsuit against them. This action is also in progress and I attach the
related decision Carbone v McMahon, 2015 ABCA 263 for your review.
I initiated a Law Society of Alberta
complaint against Ms. McMahon, in progress, and Ms. McMahon purported in her
reply that she and her colleague somehow thought it appropriate to obtain my
credit report, and without my knowledge or consent, because they made a court
application in the medical malpractice action for security for costs in April
2013, which they in fact lost. The court properly dismissed their application
for security for costs because it had no merit. Quite notably, they vexatiously
made three separate applications for security for costs in 2013 and they were
all properly dismissed by the court. I understand from Service Alberta that the
provisions of PIPA do not provide for obtaining an opposing party’s credit
report under such circumstances and, moreover, the court certainly did not make
any order to allow them to obtain my credit report, nor did Ms. McMahon and Ms.
Burnett make any application or request of any kind to obtain my credit report.
The purpose of their obtaining of my credit report was to search out my assets
and to invade my privacy in their ongoing obsession with me. A Law Society of
Alberta complaint is also in progress against Ms. Burnett at the conduct
committee re-examination stage. The unlawful obtaining of my credit report as
it relates to Ms. Burnett has not yet been introduced to the law society
complaint but it is forthcoming. Mr. Herman’s account of these matters would
have you believe otherwise.
In his letter, Mr. Herman also goes into
other irrelevant details relating to Justice Earl Wilson, the former case
management judge in my medical malpractice, and for a short time the case
management judge in my case against Ms. McMahon, Ms. Burnett and Gowlings. Ms.
McMahon and Ms. Burnett egregiously judge shopped for Justice Wilson to be
their case management judge in the action against them, while my application
for Justice Wilson’s recusal was in fact in process in the medical malpractice
action. In January 2015, Justice Wilson was eventually removed from case
managing my cases on grounds of judge shopping, bias and conflict of interest.
Conclusion
Mr. Herman’s foray into irrelevant matters
of my medical malpractice lawsuit, my case against Ms. McMahon, Ms. Burnett and
Gowlings, and my law society complaints against them, and other matters
irrelevant to my PIPA request, is perplexing and an abuse of the OIPC process.
Gowlings’ unlawful obtaining of my credit report, the subject and purpose of my
PIPA request, is not even part of my lawsuit against them at this point.
Mr. Herman’s concentration on irrelevant
matters and failure to observe the real reason for my PIPA request which he is
well aware of – Gowlings’ unlawful obtaining of my credit report – is merely a
smokescreen in resisting production of my credit and financial information
improperly in their possession, because they know it exposes them to further
liability, including potential conviction for serious breaches of PIPA.
I am deeply offended by Ms. McMahon’s and
Ms. Burnett’s egregious invasion of my privacy in improperly obtaining my
credit report and I look forward to an appropriate resolution.
I anticipate submitting my formal OIPC
review request within the coming week.
Thank you for your attention.
