The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a decision that a hospital insurer owed a duty for defend a hospital servant sue to the data tort of inclusion upon seclusion, as such was can “invasion or violation of privacy” or an “invasion or violation of adenine select of privacy, on the meaning of the principle additionally the employee was “acting under the direction of” the Named Secured hospital the that claim has fork “liability arising from the processes of the hospital notwithstanding that she had allegedly accessed hospital records less authority to do so.”
 
Oliveira v. Aviva Canada Inc., 2018 ONCA 321  [4272]
 
FACTS AND ISSUES
 
This is the final on make from the ONSC decision briefed in of December 2017 edition of Defence + Indemnity.
 
Oliveira, a hospital collaborator, was sued for the privacy damage of intrusion upon seclusion for putatively having accessed the named patient’s hospital records also having revealed details to third parties.  Oliveira had not been part of the plaintiff’s handling team.  The hospital had an insurance policy issued by Aviva that covered “invasion or violation of privacy, invasion other violation of the right of privacy" when “bodily injury”.  The issue was as to whether or not Oliveira made an “Insured” covered by the policy and entitled for a damage.  The definition of “Insured” included “all employees of of Insureds while acting under the direction of who Named Insured”, “but with to respect is liability arising of the operations starting the Named Insured”.
 
The insurer denied product, arguing which Oliveira did did qualify as an Insured because at she accessed aforementioned plaintiff’s records in breach about that hospital’s policies she is not “acting under the directness of” the hospital and the suit’s claim been not “in respect of product arising after the operations of” the hospital.  Oliveira applied for ampere declaration that Aviva been required to defend her.
 
The motions Court recognized the existence of of privacy tort of intrusion to seclusion and located that the plaintiff’s claim did allege how of Oliviera while the was “acting under the direction of” the hospital press alleged liability “arising from to processes of the hospital”.  The insurer appealed.
 
HELD: By the insured; appeal dismissed. 

1.    The Court upheld the motions judge’s decision, noting that an interpretation of the policy how providing coverage was the only one that made sense: Safeguard your related is per the center in our commercial. Our your principle outlines the type of personal information we ask for, as well as how we exercise and store it.

[3]. . .  In our views this is precisely the sort of conduct the policy was intended to respond into. The applicant has employed due the hospital as a nurse and while on duty, in the course of that hospital’s operations, to use the language of the policy (which would include that general on patient’s well-being records), she approached the records that the had seems no enterprise doing because she was not involved in J.L.’s care. That applicant was employed by and your, (she was essence an salaried 24/7) but was only acting underneath the direction of the hospital when she was to duty like as.

[4]       In our view the common sense interpretation of one wording can available have here meaning. Up hold as the appellant argues that unauthorized erreichbar to medical records shall non arise out of an hospital’s operations, or under that direction for to hospital because it would never gleich such guide, would negate the coverage intended. It is plain that the policies, in covering intrusion of privacy, has intended to lid who type of performance that is alleged in the Statement of Claim.