SUPREME COURT, OF BRITISH COLUMBIA VANCOUVER REGISTRY OCT 09 2015 28 es moor 188 405 Vancouver Registry IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Between: DAVID REICHERT and DERRICK ROSS Plaintiffs and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, THE ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE, BOB PAULSON, CRAIG CALLENS, MAXINE SCHWARTZ, PAUL DARBYSHIRE, BRAD HARTL, ROLAND BOWMAN, ISABELLE FIESCHI, DANIEL DUBEAU, RAY BERNOTIES, JUDY LEPAGE, JANE DOE, JOHN DOE, AMONG OTHERS Defendants Brought under the Class Proceedings Act, RSBC 1996 c 50 NOTICE OF CIVIL CLAIM This action has been started by the plaintiffs for the relief set out in Part 2 below. If you intend to respond to this action, you or your lawyer must (a) file a response to civil claim in Form 2 in the above-named registry of this court within the time for response to civil claim described below, and (b) serve a copy of the filed response to civil claim on the plaintiff. If you intend to make a counterclaim, you or your lawyer must (a) file a response to civil claim in Form 2 and a counterclaim in Form 3 in the above-named registry of this court within the time for response to civil claim described below, and (b) serve a copy of the filed response to civil claim and counterclaim on the plaintiff and on any new parties named in the counterclaim.JUDGMENT MAY BE PRONOUNCED AGAINST YOU IF YOU FAIL to file the response to civil claim within the time for response to civil claim described below. Time for response to civil claim A response to civil claim must be filed and served on the plaintiff(s), (a) ifyou reside anywhere in Canada, within 21 days after the date on which a copy of the filed notice of civil claim was served on you, (b) if you reside in the United States of America, within 35 days after the date on which a copy of the filed notice of civil claim was served on you, (0) ifyou reside elsewhere, within 49 days after the date on which a copy of the filed notice of civil claim was served on you, or (d) if the time for response to civil claim has been set by order of the court, within that time. CLAIM OF THE PLAINTIFFS Part 1: STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. Each of the Plaintiffs bring this action on his own behalf, and on behalf of a proposed class of similarly situated persons (‘Class Members") to be defined in the Plaintiffs’ application for class certification 2. The Plaintiffs also bring this action on behalf of each person who, by reason of his or her relationship to a Class Member is entitled to make claims under any of the Dependent Statutes as a result of injury to the Class Member (the “Family Class’). 3. “Member” in this Notice of Civil Claim is defined at the material time in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, RSC, 1985, c R-10 ("RCMP Act”) and Royal Canadian Mounted Police Regulations, 1988, SOR/88-361 (‘RCMP Regulations’). 4. “Dependent Statutes" in this Notice of Civil Claim means the: Privacy Act RSC 1985, c P-21; Privacy Act RSBC 1996, c 373; Crown Liability and Proceedings Act RSC 1985 c C-50; Crown Proceeding Act RSBC 1996, ¢ 89. 5. This action concerns the Defendants’ unlawful disclosure of the Plaintiffs’ private, confidential psychological counselling records of Members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (“RCMP”) to the College of Psychologists of British Columbia (‘College’) without the Plaintiffs’ prior knowledge and consent, contrary to Section 8 of the Privacy Act, RSC 1985, ¢ P-21 and contrary to the Privacy Act, RSBC 1996, c 373 Page 26. Onor about 2 August 2012, Brad Hartl, Chief Superintendent and Human Resources Officer, RCMP “E” Division, on behalf of the RCMP, filed a complaint alleging professional misconduct against Dr. Michael Webster, Registered Psychologist (‘Dr. Webster’), ("Complaint’), with the College of Registered Psychologists (“College”), which included excerpts from the Plaintiffs’ private and confidential psychological counselling records. Seven “Progress Reports" concerning the clinical treatment of five Members were attached to the Complaint submitted to the College (the Members’ names were redacted), 7. On 24 October 2012, the College requested that the RCMP provide a complete copy of each of the psychological counselling records referenced in the Complaint. 8. Onor about 12 November 2012, the Defendants disclosed without the Plaintiffs’ prior knowledge or consent to the College complete, un-redacted copies of the Plaintiffs’ confidential, private psychological counselling records. 9. The Psychological Counselling Reports disclosed by the Defendants included the following confidential and private information about the Plaintiffs: (a) Name; (b) Health ID Number; (c) Diagnosis; (d) Symptoms and treatment details; and (e) Employment history details. 10. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants unlawlully disclosed their private and confidential psychological counselling records without their prior knowledge and consent, which were then subject to scrutiny by the College with regards to a professional conduct complaint by the RCMP against Dr. Webster. At all material times, Dr. Webster was a long-term, RCMP authorized service provider of psychological counselling and treatment who was tasked with providing clinical treatment to the Plaintiffs. Dr. Webster was required to provide the RCMP’s Health Services Office (the “HSO") with reports concerning the Plaintiffs’ psychological treatment. 14. In order to obtain psychological counselling from an RCMP approved psychologist under the extended health benefits provided as a term and condition of their employment, the Plaintiffs are and were required to consent to disclosure of their confidential and private psychological counselling records by their treating psychologist to the HSO. 12, The HSO and its personnel were under a statutory duty, pursuant to the Privacy Act, RSC 1985, ¢ P-21, to use the Plaintiffs’ psychological counselling records only for the purposes for which they were disclosed and not to use them for any other purpose without the Plaintiffs’ express consent or as required by law. Page 313. The HSO, generally, and the HSO’s personnel, in particular, Dr. Naomi Ross, Dr. Roland Bowman, Dr. Isabelle Fieschi, and Dr. Judy LePage, were entrusted with a duty of care, a duty of trust, and a statutory duty to keep and maintain the confidentiality and privacy of the Plaintiffs’ psychological counselling records and a corresponding duty not, to disclose them to anyone without the Plaintiffs’ prior knowledge and consent, except where otherwise required by law. 14. On or about 24 November 2014, Sue Lajoie, Director General Investigations, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, concluded that the Defendants’ disclosure of the Plaintiffs’ confidential and private psychological counselling records was unlawful and contrary to Section 8 of the Privacy Act, RSC 1985, c P-21 The Parties 15. The Plaintiffs, Derrick Ross and David Reichert, were at all material times Members of the RCMP, and employees pursuant to s.7(1) of the RCMP Act. 16. The Defendant, the Attorney-General of Canada, represents the Crown in right of Canada and the RCMP in this proceeding pursuant to the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act RSC 1985, C-50 s 23 ("Crown Liability Act”). The Crown's liability arises from the conduct, negligence, malfeasance and vicarious liability of the RCMP and individuals who were at all material times Crown employees and agents, 17. The Defendant, Minister of Justice and Attorney General (the "Minister’) is named in this proceeding pursuant to ss. 11 and 21 of the Police Act, RSBC 1996, c 367. The Minister's liability arises from the conduct, negligence, malfeasance and vicarious liability of individual provincial constables in the course of their duties in British Columbia, 18, The Defendant, Bob Paulson is and was at all material times the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (“Paulson”). Paulson approved the plan to file with the College a professional conduct complaint against Dr. Webster. Subsequently, Paulson reviewed and approved the Complaint and the Plaintiffs’ private, confidential psychological counselling records, prior to them being delivered to the College. 19. The Defendant, Craig Callens ("Callens") was at all material times a Deputy Commissioner and the Commanding Officer of “E” Division. Paulson and Callens approved the plan to make a professional conduct complaint against Dr. Webster to the College. Subsequently, Paulson and Callens reviewed the Complaint and the Plaintiffs’ private, confidential psychological counselling records, prior to them being delivered to the College 20. On or about 10 August 2012, Callens was notified by Sergeant Rob Vermueulen (‘Vermeulen’), Senior Media Relations Officer, that the media was aware of the Page 4Defendants’ letters regarding Dr. Webster. Callens inquired with Superintendent Ray Bernoties (“Bernoties"), Officer in Charge BC RCMP Communications, Dawn Roberts (‘Roberts’), Acting Senior Communication Strategist, and Kevin Debruyckere regarding the response strategy. 21. The Defendant, Brad Hart! ("Hart!’) was at all material times the Chief Superintendent and Human Resources Officer for the RCMP “E” Division (“HRO"). Hart requested the RCMP’s Health Services Office to disclose unredacted copies of the Plaintiffs’ private, confidential psychological counselling records to him. 22. On or about 1 August 2012, Hart! provided Steven Dunn (“Dunn”), Chief of Staff Commissioner's Office with a package of documents with regards to Dr. Webster for the Commissioner to review. The package included seven documents: the Complaint to the College; a letter to Dr. Webster regarding discontinued funding; a letter to Members regarding Dr. Webster's discontinued funding; vetted copies of clinical records previously submitted by Dr. Webster to Health Services; two copies of media statements attributed to Dr. Webster; and a communication plan regarding Dr. Webster. 23. On or about 2 August 2012, Dunn notified Hartl that, “the Commissioner has read the draft materials and is satisfied.” 24. On or about 2 August 2012, Hatt filed with the College the Complaint and partially redacted copies of the Plaintiffs’ private, confidential psychological counselling records on behalf of the Defendant, RCMP. Hartl participated in an interview during the College's investigation of the Complaint. Hartl requested that the Defendant, Isabelle Fieschi approve a quotation to be attributed to her in the RCMP’s media release to be used in response to media inquiries concerning the Complaint to the College. 25. The Defendant, Isabelle Fieischi edited and approved a quotation to be attributed to her in the RCMP’s Press Release and in response to media inquiries about the Complaint to the College. 26. On or about 12 November 2013, the Defendants, the RCMP, Hartl, and/or persons unknown (Jane Doe or John Doe) delivered unredacted copies of the Plaintiffs’ private, confidential psychological counselling records to the College. 27. The Defendant, Dr. Judy LePage, Ph.D., R. Psych. (‘LePage”), is a Regional Psychologist, Occupational Health and Safety, RCMP Pacific Division, which forms part of the RCMP’s Health Services Office. LePage along with the Defendant, Dr. Roland Bowman composed the Complaint to the College on behalf of the Defendant, Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Subsequently, LePage disclosed copies of the Plaintifis’ private, confidential psychological counselling reports to Kevin Debruyckere. Page 528. The Defendant, Maxine Schwartz (“Schwartz”), at all material times was an Inspector and the Administrative Services Officer for RCMP’s “E” Division, As the Administrative Services Officer, Schwarz was the officer in charge of the Occupational Health and Safety program, which forms part of the Health Services Office within “E” Division. Schwartz requested that the Health Services Office disclose to her the names and home phone numbers of Members whom were being treated by Dr. Webster. ‘Schwartz and the Defendant Paul Darbyshire approved the RCMP’s public relations campaign in support of the RCMP's Complaint to the College 29. On or about 12 July 2012, Schwartz prepared a document titled, “E Division Occupational Health Service Analysis- Dr. Webster.” The stated purpose of the document was to develop the best response in regards to immerging concerns regarding Dr. Webster's services to Members. Al the outset of this analysis, the Members’ risk of suicide is considered, as Schwartz states, " suicide is a possibility since some of them are emotionally fragile and unstable....there is no specific mitigation for this risk although all members’ medical files will be reviewed for suicide risk as part of our action plan.” Similarly, the second risk addressed the Members’ deteriorating medical conditions. 30. The Defendant Paul Darbyshire (“Darbyshire") was at the material time a Superintendent and the Senior Human Resources Director, Employee and Management Relations within “E” Division of the RCMP. Darbyshire and Schwartz approved the RCMP's public relations campaign in support of the RCMP's Complaint to the College. 31. The Defendant, Ray Bernoties (“Bernoties”) was at the material time a Superintendent and the Officer in Charge of BC RCMP Communications. On or about 8 March 2012, Bernoties suggested revisions to a draft letter to Dr. Webster, citing, “I fear that we will appear to be simply cutting him off because he speaks poorly of us.” On or about 22 May 2012, Bernoties notified Hart! and Schwartz that an interview with Dr. Webster had aired on 22 May 2012 and that the material may be grounds for the RCMP's Complaint to the College. 32. The Defendant, Dawn Roberts (“Roberts”) was at the material time the Acting Senior Communications Strategist for the RCMP. On or about 1 August 2012, Roberts provided Hart! with the “communications plan to support the letters being sent by HRO and Health Services.” Roberts confirmed that she developed the quote for Dr. Fieschi and asked whether Dr. Fieschi should be consulted in the review of said quote. 33. The Defendant, Danie! Dubeau (“Dubeau’) was at the material time the Director of Health Services for the RCMP. Dubeau, Hartl and Paulson approved the national strategy in support of the RCMP’s Complaint to the College. The Plaintiff, Derrick Ross Page 634. Derrick Ross ("Ross") served in the RCMP for 25 years, and at the time of the breach Ross was employed as a Staff Sergeant stationed at the Surrey Detachment. 35. Pursuant to the terms of the RCMP health benefit plan, the RCMP, as a self-insured employer, maintained a list of approved service providers, including Registered Psychologists. For many years, Dr. Webster was one of the RCMP's approved Registered Psychologists. 36. During the term of his employment, and pursuant to the benefit plan, Ross accessed and received services from Dr. Webster as one of the RCMP approved service providers. 37. On or about 25 July 2012, the RCMP removed Dr. Webster from the list of approved Registered Psychologists. 38. On or about 2 August 2012, the RCMP initiated the Complaint with the College against Dr. Webster. 39. On or about 9 August 2012, the RCMP informed Ross by mail to his private residence, that the services provided by Dr. Webster would no longer be paid for by the RCMP. The mailing label, accessible by and visible to the public, identified Ross as a Member and included the Plaintiff's rank, which is contrary to the RCMP’s long established protocol 40. On or about 24 October 2012, the College requested the RCMP to disclose complete, unredacted copies of the Plaintiffs’ confidential and private psychological counselling records to assist in their review of the RCMP’s Complaint. 41. On or about 12 November 2012, the RCMP caused unredacted copies of the Ross’ progress reports to be disclosed to the College. 42. The RCMP did not notify Ross that his private and confidential psychological counselling records were being used for and were being disclosed to the College for the purposes of the Complaint. 43. Ross did not consent to either the use of, or the disclosure of his confidential and private psychological counselling records to the College for the purpose of the Complaint. 44, On or about 23 October 2013, Ross, among others, became aware for the first time that the RCMP had disclosed unredacted copies of his private, confidential psychological counselling records to the College without his prior knowledge or consent. 45. On or about 31 July 2013, Ross, among others, caused a complaint to be filed against the RCMP with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada Page 7(‘Commissioner’), citing the inappropriate use and disclosure of the Plaintiff's personal health information, pursuant to ss.7 and 8 of the Privacy Act RSC1985, c P-21, Specifically, the Plaintiff alleged that Brad Hartl, Chief Superintendent and Human Resources Officer, RCMP “E” Division, used and disclosed his psychological records related to the Plaintiff's clinical care without his consent. 46. The Commissioner concluded that a serious privacy breach had occurred and that the disclosure of the Plaintiffs’ personal information to the College was in contravention of 8.8 of the Privacy Act. The Plaintiff, David Reichert 47. David Reichert (‘Reichert’) served in the RCMP for 30 years, and at the time of the breach Reichert was employed as a Corporal stationed at the “E” Division Headquarters, Traffic Services 48. Pursuant to the terms of the RCMP health benefit plan, the RCMP, as a self-insured employer, maintained a list of approved service providers, including Registered Psychologists. At the material time, Dr. Michael Webster was one of the RCMP’s approved Registered Psychologists. 49. During the term of his employment, and pursuant to the benefit plan, Reichert accessed and received services from Dr. Webster as one of the RCMP approved service providers. 50. On or about 25 July 2012, the RCMP removed Dr. Webster from the list of approved Registered Psychologists. 51. On or about 2 August 2012, the RCMP initiated the Complaint with the College against Dr. Webster. 52. On or about 9 August 2012, the RCMP informed Reichert by mail to his private residence, that the services provided by Dr. Webster would no longer be paid for by the RCMP. The mailing label, accessible by and visible to the public, identified the Plaintiff as a Member and included Reichert's rank, which is contrary to the RCMP’s long established protocol 53. On or about 24 October 2012, the College requested that the RCMP disclose complete, unredacted copies of Reichert’s confidential and private psychological counselling records to assist in their review of the Defendants’ Complaint. 54. On or about 12 November 2012, the RCMP caused unredacted copies of the Plaintiff's progress reports to be disclosed to the College. Page 855. The RCMP did not notify Reichert that his private and confidential psychological counselling records were being used for and were being disclosed to the College for the purposes of the Complaint. 56. Reichert did not consent to either the use of or the disclosure of his confidential and private psychological counselling records to the College for the purpose of the Complaint. 57. On or about 23 October 2013, Reichert, among others, became aware for the first time that the RCMP had disclosed unredacted copies of his private, confidential psychological counselling records to the College without his prior knowledge or consent. 58. On or about 31 July 2013, Reichert, among others, caused a complaint to be filed against the RCMP with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (‘Commissioner’), citing the inappropriate use and disclosure of the Plaintiff's personal health information, pursuant to ss.7 and 8 of the Privacy Act RSC1985, c P-21 Specifically, the Plaintiff alleged that Brad Hartl, Chief Superintendent and Human, Resources Officer for the RCMP “E” Division, used and disclosed psychological records related to the Plaintiff's clinical care without his consent. 59. The Commissioner concluded that a serious privacy breach had occurred and that the disclosure of the Plaintiffs’ personal information to the College was in contravention of 8.8 of the Privacy Act. Right to Privacy 60. Privacy is a core value of Canadian Society that is recognized in the Charter, federal and provincial privacy legislation and jurisprudence Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part | of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982, ch 11 (U.K.), ss 7 and 8; Privacy Act RSC1985, c P- 21; Privacy Act RSBC 1996, c 373; Hunter v Southam Inc., [1984] 2 SCR 145, 41 CR (3d) 97, at 159. 61. The breach of one’s right to privacy is recognized as a cause of action in British Columbia Privacy Act, RSBC 1996, c 373, s 1(1). 62. The right to privacy is a core workplace value: Re Trimac Transportation Services-Bulk Systems v Transportation Communications Union (1999), 88 LAC (4th) 237 at 269 (Burkett). 63. It has long been the case that an employer requires justification for intrusive privacy measures: Page 9Canada Post Corp. v CUPW, [1988] CarswellNat 876 (Can. Arb. Bd.) (Bird), cited with approval in Irving Pulp & Paper Lid. v CEP, Local 30 re Day (2009), 189 LAG (4th) 218, at 234, revd Irving Pulp & Paper Ltd. v CEP, Local 30 (2010), 2010 NBQB 294. 64. Confidentiality of medical records is a basic right to human dignity: USW, Local 7884 v Fording Coal Lid., 44 CLAS 171, [1996] BCCAAA No. 94, cited in Accenture, supra, at 50. 65. An employee has a “special privacy interest’ in his personal medical information: BCTF v BCPSEA (2004), 79 CLAS 14, [2004] BCCAAA No. 177 (BC; Taylor), at 24; cited in Re Accenture Business Services for Utilities v COPE, Local 378 (2008), 175 LAC (4th) 353 (Taylor) ["Accenture"), at 49. RCMP - Negligence 66. At all material times, the Defendants owed a duty of care to the Plaintiffs and Class Members to ensure that the Plaintiffs and Class Members received health services in a safe and secure environment whereby their private, confidential health records would be used only for the purpose they were disclosed, and to ensure that they were stored, and protected from unauthorized disclosure without the Plaintiffs’ express consent or as otherwise required by law. 67. The Defendants’ breached their duty of care by: (a) unlawfully using the Plaintiffs’ private confidential psychological counselling records for a purpose other than that for which they were disclosed to the Defendants without the Plaintiffs’ knowledge and express consent or as otherwise permitted by law; (b) unlawfully disclosing the Plaintiffs’ private, confidential medical records to the College without the Plaintiffs’ knowledge and express consent or as otherwise permitted by law; (c) failing to adequately and properly supervise its employees, agents or servants; (d) failing to have and implement adequate legislation, policies, procedures, Code of Conduct and guidelines to ensure the Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ privacy rights were upheld and that the confidential records were stored securely and not subject to unlawful disclosure by the Defendants; (e) failing to properly investigate allegations of privacy breaches in the workplace in a thorough, timely and impartial manner; and (f)_ failing to take any steps at all to remedy the alleged privacy breach in a timely and meaningful manner; or, in the alternative, by failing to take all reasonable steps to remedy the alleged privacy breach in a timely and meaningful manner. 68. In the alternative, in the event the RCMP's policies, procedures, Code of Conduct and guidelines were adequate, which is not admitted, but is specifically denied, then the Page 10Defendants breached their duties by failing or neglecting to implement those policies, procedures, Codes of Conduct and guidelines. Breach of Contract 69. The RCMP entered into a contract of employment with the Plaintiffs and Class Members, pursuant to the RCMP Act and Regulations. 70. It was an express or implied term of the employment contract that the RCMP would provide the Plaintiffs and Class Members with a work environment that complied with the applicable legislation, policies, procedures, Code of Conduct, guidelines and the common law. 71. The RCMP breached the aforementioned contractual terms by: (a) unlawfully using the Plaintiffs’ private, confidential psychological counselling records for a purpose other than that for which they were disclosed to the Defendants without the Plaintiffs’ knowledge and express consent or as otherwise permitted by law; (b) unlawfully disclosing the Plaintiffs’ private, confidential medical records to the College without the Plaintiffs’ knowledge and express consent or as otherwise permitted by law; (c) failing to adequately and properly supervise its employees, agents or servants; (d) failing to have and implement adequate legislation, policies, procedures, Code of Conduct and guidelines to ensure the Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ privacy rights were upheld and that the confidential records were stored securely and not subject to unlawful disclosure by the Defendants; (@) failing to properly investigate allegations of privacy breaches in the workplace in a thorough, timely and impartial manner; and (8) failing to take any steps at all to remedy the alleged privacy breach in a timely and meaningful manner; or, in the alternative, by failing to take all reasonable steps to remedy the alleged privacy breach in a timely and meaningful manner. RCMP Member and Employee Negligence 72. At all material times, Members, Crown employees and agents owed a duty of care to the Plaintiffs and Class Members to ensure that they could access health services in a safe and secure manner and that their confidential medical records would be stored securely and be free from unauthorized disclosure. 73. Section 37 of the RCMP Act provides that the Member responsibilities include: (a) to respect the rights of all persons; (b) to maintain the integrity of the law, law enforcement and the administration of justice; Page 1174, 75. harm to the Plai (0) to perform the member's duties promptly, impartially and diligently, in accordance with the law and without abusing the member's authority; (d) to avoid any actual, apparent or potential conflict of interests; (e) to ensure that any improper or unlawful conduct of any member is not concealed or permitted to continue; (f) to be incorruptible, never accepting or seeking special privilege in the performance of the member's duties or otherwise placing the member under any obligation that may prejudice the proper performance of the member's duties; (g) to act at all times in a courteous, respectful and honourable manner; and (h) to maintain the honour of the Force and its principles and purposes. The Defendants breached the aforementioned duties by: (a) engaging in a practice that deprived and comprised the Plaintiffs and Class Members of their right to privacy: (b) failing or neglecting to adhere to the requisite legislation, policies, procedures, Code of Conduct and guidelines with regards to Members’ access to health care, and the corresponding obligations regarding the use and disclosure of confidential medical records; (c) failing to adequately investigate allegations of privacy breaches in a thorough, timely and impartial manner; (d) failing to comply with s.37 of the ROMP Act, (e) failing to hold accountable those found to be in breach of the legislation, policies, procedures, Code of Conduct and guidelines; (f) failing to adequately supervise Members, RCMP officers, managers and employees; and (g) targeting and harassing the Plaintiffs because they were under the care of Dr. Webster, whose contract for services had been terminated by the RCMP. ‘The Defendants’ conduct was reprehensible, calculated and exacted to cause iffs and the Class Members. As a result of the Defendants’ extreme conduct, the Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered pecuniary loss, mental and physical injury. 76. The Defendants knew or ought to have known that their conduct would offend and threaten the integrity and security of a reasonable person. Additionally, the Defendants knew or ought to have known their conduct would: (a) intimidate; Page 12(b) humiliate; (c) embarrass; (d) offend; and (e) threaten; a similarly situated person in the workplace. 77. In the alternative, the Defendants knew or ought to have known that the Plaintiffs and Class Members were particularly susceptible to injury as a result of the Defendants’ egregious conduct. Injury and Damage 78. As a result of the Defendants’ breach of contract and their breach of the duty of care that the Defendants owed to the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs and Class Members have sustained significant and long-term injury and loss including: (a) post-traumatic stress disorder; (b) depression; (c) anxiety; (d) suicidal ideation; (e) attempted suicide; (f) strained interpersonal relationships; (g) diminished coping skills (h) emotional distress; (i) insomnia; (i) diminished self-worth; (k) nervous shock; (I) loss of enjoyment of life; (m) loss of career advancement opportunities; (n) loss of privacy; and (0) loss of control over the Plaintiffs’ private, confidential health records. 79. These injuries aggravated or exacerbated earlier injuries such that they are intrinsically intertwined and difficult to separate. 80. The Plaintiffs and the Class Members have sustained damages, loss and expenses for medical and psychological care and treatment. The Plaintiffs and Class Members Page 13continue to undergo medical and psychological treatment and relatedly, continue to incur loss and expense. Part 2: RELIEF SOUGHT 81. The Plaintiffs claim, on their own behalf and on behalf of a Class of similarly situated persons as follows: (a) An order certifying this action as a class proceeding and appointing them as the representative plaintiffs under the Class Proceedings Act, (b) A declaration that the RCMP wiliully or, in the alternative, negligently breached the Plaintiffs’ right to privacy under to the Privacy Act RSC 1985, c P-21, the Privacy Act RSBC 1996, c 373, and the Crown Liability and Proceeding Act, RSC 1985, c C-50; (c) An order for cease and desist the unauthorized use and disclosure of the Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ medical records without their express consent or as otherwise permitted by law; (d) An order that the Defendants severally and jointly pay pecuniary damages to the Plaintiffs and Class Members for breach of privacy, pecuniary loss, loss of future employment opportunities; (e) An order that the Defendants, severally and jointly, pay pecuniary damages to the Plaintiffs and Class members for loss of dignity, self-respect and hurt feelings; or, in the alternative, an award for damages for pain and suffering; () An order that the Defendants, severally and jointly, pay pecuniary damages to the Plaintiffs and Class Members for breach of contact; (g) An order that the Defendants pay punitive damages, or in the alternative, aggravated damages, to the Plaintiffs, as a result of the Defendants’ high- handed and egregious conduct, including, but not limited to, the Defendants failure to take any and all reasonable steps to provide timely and meaningful redress and remedies to the Plaintiffs and Class Members, as a result of the Defendants’ breach of privacy; (h) An order that the Defendants pay interest pursuant to the Court Order Interest Act, RSBC1996, c 79, as amended; (i) An award of costs of this Action; and () Such further relief that this Honourable Court deems just and equitable in all of the circumstances. Part 3: LEGAL BASIS 82. The Plaintiffs plead and rely on the Class Proceedings Act, RSBC 1996 c 50, Privacy Act RSC 1985, c P-21, Privacy Act RSBC 1996, c 373, Crown Liability and Proceeding Act, RSC 1985, ¢ C-50. 83. The Plaintiffs repeat and rely upon paragraphs 44 - 71. Page 14Standard of Care 84, The requisite standard of care owed by the RCMP to the Plaintiffs and Class Members is informed by the Privacy Act RSC 1985, c P-21; Privacy Act RSBC 1996, c 373; Crown Liability and Proceedings Act RSC 1985 ¢ C-50; Crown Proceeding Act RSBC 1996, c 89, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, RSC 1985, c R-10, and the corresponding Code of Conduct established pursuant to s.38 of the RCMP Act. Family Class 85. Asa result of the negligence of the Defendants, the members of the Family Class have and will continue to experience loss and damage, the particulars of which include, loss of income and loss of opportunity to the Plaintiffs, and expenses incurred, as a result of injury to the Plaintiffs Government Liability for Negligence of RCMP Members 86. The Crown is vicariously liable for the torts committed by Members and Employees in the course of their duties. The Plaintiffs plead and rely on the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, ss. 3 and 36. 87. The Minister is jointly and severally liable for torts committed by Members in the course of their duties in the province of British Columbia. The Plaintiffs plead and rely on the Police Act ss. 11 and 21 Plaintiff's’ address for service: Labour Rights Law Office Suite #211 Lincoln Centre, 3030 Lincoln Avenue, Coquitlam, BC V3B 6B4 Fax number address for service: 1-877-700-8879 E-mail address for service: service@labourrightslaw.com Place of trial: Vancouver The address of the registry is: 800 Smithe Street Vancouver, BC V6Z 2! Date: 9 October 2015 Sebéstien AhtérGoh, Barrister & Solicitor Counsel for the Plaintiffs Page 15Rule 7-1 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules states: (1) Unless all parties of record consent or the court otherwise orders, each party of record to an action must, within 35 days after the end of the pleading period, (a) prepare a list of documents in Form 22 that lists (i) all documents that are or have been in the party's possession or control and that could, if available, be used by any party at trial to prove or disprove a material fact, and (ii) all other documents to which the party intends to refer at trial, and (b) serve the list on all parties of record. Page 16APPENDIX Part 1: CONCISE SUMMARY OF NATURE OF CLAII privacy. he Plaintiff claims a breach of Part 2: THIS CLAIM ARISES FROM THE FOLLOWING: A personal injury arising out of []a motor vehicle accident [] medical malpractice x another cause A dispute concerning [J contaminated sites [construction defects [] real property (real estate) [personal property [the provision of goods or services or other general commercial matters LJinvestment losses [the lending of money 1X] an employment relationship [a will or other issues concerning the probate of an estate [Ja matter not listed here Part 3: THIS CLAIM INVOLVES Page 17PXJa class action [] maritime law [ aboriginal taw [J constitutional law [conflict of laws [J none of the above [do not know Part Privacy Act RSC 1985, ¢ P-21; Privacy Act RSBC 1996, ¢ 373; and Court Order Interest Act, RSBC 1996, ¢ 79, among others. Revised: 2010008106 Page 18