36296 Royal Bank of Canada v. Phat Trang, et al.
Privacy – Protection of personal information – Creditor and debtor
On appeal from the Court of Appeal for Ontario. The applicant, Royal Bank of Canada (“RBC”), has a judgment against the respondents, Phat and Phuong Trang. The Trangs own a property mortgaged to the respondent, Bank of Nova Scotia (“Scotiabank”). The Sheriff refuses to sell the property without a mortgage discharge statement. RBC sought to obtain this statement by examining the Trangs but they did not appear, and Scotiabank said PIPEDA precluded it from disclosing the statement. RBC then brought a motion to compel Scotiabank to produce the statement. The motion judge found that he was bound by Citi Cards Canada Inc. v. Pleasance, 2011 ONCA 3, 103 O.R. (3d) 241 and dismissed the motion. The Ontario Court of Appeal quashed RBC’s appeal because the motion judge’s order was interlocutory, finding RBC should seek to examine a Scotiabank representative and obtain the statement by motion under rule 60.18(6)(a) of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure. Scotiabank appeared voluntarily on the examination, however, and not by court order issued under rule 60.18(6)(a). It maintained PIPEDA prevented disclosure of the discharge statement. RBC brought another motion to compel production by Scotiabank, however the motion was not brought under rule 60.18(6)(a), contrary to the instructions of the Court of Appeal. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed RBC’s motion. The majority of the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed RBC’s appeal (Hoy A.C.J.O. and Sharpe J.A. dissenting).