CV-17-570771-00CP (Reddock v. Attorney General of Canada)
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: CHRISTOPHER BRAZEAU and DAVID KIFT, Plaintiffs
AND:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, Defendant
AND BETWEEN:
JULLIAN JORDEA REDDOCK, Plaintiff
AND:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, Defendant
BEFORE: Justice Glustein
COUNSEL: Michael T. R-F Slattery, for the individual claimant Russell Pine
James Sayce and Gerry Antman for the plaintiffs in both actions
H. Michael Rosenberg, Adam Kanji and Lauren Weaver for the plaintiff Jullian Reddock
David W. Foulds and David Lafontaine for the Federal Administrative Segregation Class Action Administrator, Epiq Class Action Services Canada Inc.
Lucas Gregory and Joseph Chan for the defendant in both actions
HEARD: In writing
Reasons for Decision
Nature of motion and overview
1The individual claimant, Russell Pine (“Pine”) brings this motion seeking approval for the use, in restricted and anonymized form, of personal information contained in the administration system (the “Admin System”) developed and maintained by the claims administrator, Epiq Class Action Services Canada Inc. (“Epiq”). Pine seeks to use the information in his individual “Track 3” claim under the amended “Distribution and Individual Issues Protocol”, approved by a joint order of the Ontario and Québec courts dated February 20, 2025 (the “Protocol”).
2The information was downloaded by Pine’s counsel, Michael Slattery (“Slattery”), by clicking on a “Show All Link”, a legacy filtering button within the Admin System that had been developed and implemented at a time when no “Outside Counsel” (i.e. counsel outside Class Counsel) had access to the Admin System. Epiq had inadvertently permitted the Show All Link to remain available and active on the Admin System after the Admin System was opened to Outside Counsel, even though Outside Counsel were, under the Protocol, limited to only having access to information about their client.
3The information downloaded consisted of confidential and personal information from Correctional Services Canada (“CSC”), including information stored by Epiq on an “Inmate Placement Page” and an electronic spreadsheet which lists specific personal data for all individuals that were placed in administrative segregation during the class period (“Placement Data”), regardless of if they are class members. The Placement Data includes information for each inmate related to, inter alia, their incarceration and administrative segregation.
4Epiq, as well as the representative plaintiffs and the defendant, the Attorney General of Canada (“Canada”) oppose the motion. Collectively, they submit that:
(i) There is no basis for the court to make an order removing the protection of the personal information under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, S.C. 2000, c. 5 (“PIPEDA”), which binds Epiq, or the Privacy Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-21, which is applicable to CSC as a government institution; and
(ii) In any event, there is no evidence to support that the Placement Data is relevant to Pine’s Track 3 claim.
5For the reasons that follow, I dismiss the motion.
Facts
The Admin System
6On July 23, 2021, Epiq was appointed as claims administrator to the Reddock, Brazeau, and Diggs class proceedings (“RBD”), by this court (and the Cour supérieure du Québec).
7The scope of Epiq’s role as claims administrator is set out in the court’s order dated July 23, 2021 (“Appointment Order”). According to the Appointment Order, Epiq must act in accordance with (i) the terms therein, (ii) all Court Orders (as defined in the Appointment Order), and (iii) the Protocol. Epiq’s role includes, but is not limited to:
(i) developing a process to administer and manage individual claims in accordance with the Protocol and Appointment Order,
(ii) handling all matters required for the efficient and effective management, processing and review of all claims, and
(iii) developing and maintaining a secure database, which preserves the integrity and confidentiality of information it receives, pursuant to Section D of the Appointment Order.
8In fulfilling its role, Epiq developed, and maintains, an administration system (previously defined as the “Admin System”) that supports collaboration between the parties and facilitates claims evaluation through access to information relevant to the claims.
The Placement Data
9Under section 3.3 of the Protocol, Canada provided Epiq and Class Counsel with placement information for each inmate incarcerated in a correctional institution during the RBD class periods (regardless of if they are class members) in an electronic spreadsheet format (“Inmate Data Spreadsheet”). The contents of this electronic spreadsheet are only authorized to be available to Epiq, Class Counsel, and Canada through the database as the “Inmate Placement Page”.
10This electronic spreadsheet is used by Epiq to administer claims. Following the receipt of a completed claims form, Epiq uses the Inmate Data Spreadsheet to update claimant files in the database by populating the fields for the dates of each class members’ administrative segregation placements, along with the corresponding institution where the placement occurred.
11The Placement Data includes the following personal information for each inmate: Finger Print Section Number, Claim ID (if applicable), name, birthdate, admit date, release date, duration, facility, longest segregation period, and representation.
12Placements before June 20, 2009 are not included in the Placement Data.1 Class Counsel can ask Epiq to provide placement information from before that date, and Epiq would take the steps necessary to do so.
13Until February 23, 2023, Epiq provided only Class Counsel, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), and CSC with access to the Admin System.
14However, individual claimants began to be represented by lawyers other than Class Counsel (previously defined as “Outside Counsel”). Consequently, on February 23, 2023, Epiq was instructed by the DOJ to provide limited access to Outside Counsel as well – the intention being to allow Outside Counsel to perform the same actions as Class Counsel but with their access restricted to information about only the individual claimants they represent.
15Section 4 of the Protocol sets out the access that participants have to the Epiq database, all of which is subject to the consent of individual claimants. Under section 4.4 of the Protocol, counsel have “secure access to the Database files of the Claimants they represent, as authorized by the Claimant pursuant to this Protocol.” By contrast, section 4.3 authorizes Canada to have “secure access to all Database files, as authorized by the Claimant pursuant to this Protocol”.
16Once Epiq is satisfied of a lawyer-client relationship between a claimant and Outside Counsel, Epiq provides Admin System training to such Outside Counsel, which is exclusively focused on, and confined to, the content and functionality of the Admin System as it relates to the individual claimant(s) whom Outside Counsel represents.
Slattery downloads the Placement Data
17Slattery is Outside Counsel for Pine, an individual claimant within the class action. In his capacity as Outside Counsel for Pine, Slattery was provided access to the Admin System on September 6, 2025 and participated in a training session around the same date. After his initial training, Slattery accessed the Admin System on eight separate dates between September 10 and November 20, 2025.
18On Friday November 14, 2025, Slattery contacted Epiq seeking assistance in accessing Mr. Pine’s Placement Data. Epiq responded by providing information to Slattery on how to access Pine’s complete segregation placements during the class period and how to request further disclosure. Later that same date, and for the first time, Slattery disclosed to Epiq that he could see all of the other inmates’ information and asked whether this was “usual”.
19On Monday, November 17, 2025, Epiq confirmed to Slattery that it was not “usual” to have access to information of other inmates and requested that Slattery provide further details regarding the data he was able to access. Shortly thereafter, Slattery provided screenshots of the information to Epiq.
20Slattery then downloaded a copy of the confidential data (the “Confidential Electronic File”).
21After receiving the screenshots from Slattery and conducting an immediate investigation, Epiq determined that Slattery appeared to have accessed the Placement Data by clicking the “Show All Link”.
22Upon realizing that this legacy Show All Link provided Slattery the ability to view the Placement Data for other inmates, Epiq immediately removed access to the Show All Link for all Outside Counsel.
23On November 26, 2025, upon receiving instructions from the DOJ, Epiq suspended all Outside Counsel access to the Admin System. Outside Counsel access to the Admin System, including Slattery’s access, has since been restored.
24From November 17 to November 24, 2025, Epiq contacted Slattery on seven occasions, via email and telephone, requesting that he confirm that he had deleted the Confidential Electronic File. Slattery did not respond to any of Epiq’s emails, telephone calls, or voicemails.
25On November 24, 2025, Slattery wrote to this court characterizing his decision to download the Placement Data as an “inadvertent disclosure” by Epiq and seeking direction on how he should “maintain and potentially use” the contents of the Confidential Electronic File. In his letter to the court, Slattery acknowledged that the Placement Data that he chose to download from the Admin System was private information concerning the inmates to which the Placement Data related.
26After receiving Slattery’s letter on November 24, 2025, Koskie Minsky asked Slattery to delete the Confidential Electronic File. Slattery refused.
27On November 27, 2025, Canada, Class Counsel, and Epiq jointly wrote to the court requesting that Slattery delete the Confidential Electronic File.
28On February 19, 2026, pursuant to the terms of the order of this court dated January 16, 2026 (the “January 16 Order”), Slattery returned the Confidential Electronic File containing the contents of the Inmate Placement Page, to Epiq. Since receiving the Confidential Electronic File from Slattery, Epiq has been holding the file for safe keeping in accordance with the terms of the January 16 Order.
29There was no information respecting Pine in the Placement Data beyond what was already available to Slattery through his permissible access to the Admin System.
Relationship between Pine and Class Counsel
30On October 7, 2021, Pine submitted a claim form to Epiq, asserting that he is a class member. On the claim form, Pine advised that he wished to be represented by Class Counsel.
31Until November 7, 2023, Koskie Minsky was retained to advance Pine’s individual issues claim. During the course of Koskie Minsky’s retainer:
(i) On or about October 6, 2022, Koskie Minsky conducted an initial intake appointment with Pine.
(ii) On October 13, 2022, Pine wrote Koskie Minsky and apologized for abruptly ending their call. He wrote he wished to pursue a Track 3 claim, that he spent “8-10 years” in segregation, that CSC should have put him in an “appropriate part” of their institution instead of segregation, and that he is willing to go to court for trial.
(iii) By reply email dated October 13, 2022, Koskie Minsky tried to schedule another call to complete the intake interview.
(iv) On October 19, 2022, Pine wrote Koskie Minsky again. He stated he wanted to say his “piece” when it comes to track selection and reiterated that he was in segregation for “8-9 years”.
32Pine became dissatisfied with Class Counsel’s representation of his claim. I do not set out all of the allegations about Class Counsel’s conduct, as it is not relevant to the issues on this motion.
33On November 7, 2023, Class Counsel advised Pine that they could not represent him.
34Pine reported Class Counsel to the Law Society of Ontario ("LSO"), which dismissed the complaint. Pine appealed this decision to the Complaints Resolution Commission of the LSO, which found the initial decision to dismiss the complaint to be reasonable.
Pine retains Slattery as counsel for his Track 3 claim
35On or about September 6, 2025, Pine retained Slattery to prosecute his individual issues claim. At that point, Pine did not share the details of the breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship with Koskie Minsky.
36On or about March 4, 2026, Slattery first learned of Pine’s alleged experiences with Koskie Minsky.
Analysis
37As I set out above, Epiq, the representative plaintiffs, and Canada collectively submit:
(i) There is no basis for the court to support an order removing the protection of the confidential information under PIPEDA or the Privacy Act.
(ii) In any event, there is no evidence to support that the Placement Data is relevant to Pine’s Track 3 claim.
38I address each of these issues below.
39Pine also submits that Epiq has no standing before this court. I disagree and I address that issue as well.
Issue 1: Is there any basis for the court to support an order removing the protection of the confidential information under [PIPEDA](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/sc-2000-c-5/latest/sc-2000-c-5.html) or the [Privacy Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-p-21/latest/rsc-1985-c-p-21.html)?
40Pine seeks an order to use the documents based on (i) PIPEDA and the Privacy Act, (ii) Rule 30.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, and (iii) the equitable jurisdiction of the court. I address each of these positions below.
PIPEDA and the Privacy Act
41Pine relies on sections 7(3)(c) and 7(3)(i) of PIPEDA as a basis for the relief sought on this motion. However, those sections only permit a person to disclose personal information if it is “required to comply with … an order made by the court” (s. 7(3)(c) of PIPEDA) or if it is required by law (s. 7(3)(i) of PIPEDA).
42The disclosure of the Placement Data in the present case was not made pursuant to a court order or any law. Instead, the disclosure arose by the intentional act of Slattery downloading the Placement Data.
43Pine submits that the court can make an order under s. 12 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 6 (the “CPA”) to permit the disclosure of personal information which would otherwise be prohibited under PIPEDA or the Privacy Act. I agree that the court can make such an order. However, this is not an appropriate case to do so.
44Section 12 of the CPA allows a court, whether on its own initiative or on a party's motion, to "make any order it considers appropriate respecting the conduct of a proceeding under this Act to ensure its fair and expeditious determination and, for the purpose, may impose such terms on the parties as it considers appropriate".
45Consequently, courts have made orders permitting the disclosure of personal information, but only where such disclosure advances the CPA’s goals of promoting access to justice, judicial economy and behaviour modification. By way of example:
(i) In Airia Brands v. Air Canada, 2016 ONSC 1371, the plaintiffs entered into a settlement with some of the defendant airlines but not others. The plaintiffs sought an order requiring the non-settling defendants to produce customer information, including names, contact information, and purchase amounts for intra-Canada air freight shipping services to the administrator, for "the limited purpose of providing notice and facilitating the claims administration process pursuant to the proposed distribution protocol": at para. 15.
The court agreed, emphasizing "the production of this information is to fulfil the goals of a class proceeding and ensure access to justice to the class members and to ensure they benefit from the settlements”: at para. 26.
The administrator was ordered to maintain confidentiality of the information. The administrator was forbidden from disclosing any of it "except to the specific settlement class member to whom it relate[d]". Moreover, the administrator was required to delete the information and the report it prepared once the litigation concluded: at paras. 27-28.
(ii) In Nardi v. Sorin Group Deutschland GMBH, 2022 ONSC 4126, the court ordered production of hospital mailing lists of patients contacted about possible contamination “because (a) the Mailing Lists identif[ied] the patients who were potentially exposed to the M. chimaera bacteria; (b) the Mailing lists [would] facilitate communicating with the Class Members about the prosecution of the action and about settlement negotiations, if any; and (c) the Mailing lists [would] facilitate gathering evidence for the common issues trial”: at para. 4. As a means of ensuring access to justice for class members, the court granted the order sought: at para. 6.
(iii) In Sheridan Chevrolet et al v. Denso et al, 2021 ONSC 3648, the court ordered the defendant car manufacturers to “produce certain customer information to the claim administrator for the limited purpose of facilitating notice and the claims process under the Omnibus Distribution Protocol”: at para. 16. In that case, “[t]he claim administrator ha[d] signed a confidentiality agreement and [would] implement security measures to safeguard this information”: at para. 20. Consequently, access to justice for class members was the goal of the order.
46None of the above cases apply to the present matter before the court.
47Class members would receive no benefit from the disclosure of their personal information to Pine. Even on an anonymized basis, class members would have their privacy rights violated as Pine would have access to confidential information relating to incarceration and administrative segregation. None of the goals of the CPA would be achieved.
Rule 30.02(1)
48Pine relies on r. 30.02(1), which allows for the production of relevant information in discovery that has come into counsel’s possession, whether or not the law of privilege applies.
49However, rr. 30.02(1) and 30.02(2) address documentary disclosure obligations in the discovery process. They do not govern, and are not engaged by, the issues raised on this motion. These Rules also have no application to the summary judgment process contemplated for Track 3 claims under the Protocol.
50Under the Protocol, the court is not addressing a civil action where the Rules apply. Disclosure is governed by the Protocol, a court-ordered structure of production to ensure access to justice, and judicial economy. A claim under Track 2 or 3 must comply with the Protocol and in particular, section 4.4, which provides that counsel will only have secure access to the Admin System files of the claimants they represent. There is no suggestion that counsel can have access to the files of claimants they do not represent.
51Consequently, while a court has the power to make an order under s. 12 of the CPA to advance access to justice for class members, in the present case, the court ought not vitiate the Protocol and use civil procedure rules (assuming that the evidence sought is relevant, which I do not accept and address below), when the goals under the CPA would not be met by such disclosure.
Equitable entitlement
52Pine submits that equitable factors favour use of the Placement Data because there was an alleged “mass breach” of personal information and misconduct by Epiq in responding to the breach. I do not agree.
53First, there is no evidence to support a finding of a “mass breach.” There is no evidence that any Outside Counsel other than Slattery accessed, or downloaded, the Placement Data of inmates other than those they represented. The fact that the Show All Link remained active does not imply a mass breach.
54Further, there is no evidentiary basis for Pine’s speculation that the technical issue that permitted Slattery to view other inmates’ Placement Data was “pervasive and not easily cured”. To the contrary, Epiq’s uncontradicted evidence is that it removed Outside Counsel’s ability to access the legacy Show All Link promptly after determining that Slattery had used that link to access the full Inmate Placement Page.
55Second, there is no evidence to support any improper conduct by Epiq in responding to the breach. Epiq immediately advised Slattery that it was not “usual” for him to be able to see the personal information of other inmates. Epiq quickly took steps to shut down access for Outside Counsel until the See All Link was removed, and restored access once the problem was resolved.
56In such circumstances, there is no equitable entitlement of Pine to the Placement Data.
Issue 2: Is the Placement Data relevant to Pine’s Track 3 claim?
57Pine submits that the Placement Data is “relevant and probative to Pine’s Track 3 claim rebuttal of the federal six-year limitation period”. I do not agree.
58In his factum, Pine takes issue with the conduct of Class Counsel and submits that Class Counsel took no steps to ensure that Pine understood the material facts necessary for a limitation period to begin to run.
59However, the evidence of when other inmates were incarcerated or their maximum period of administrative segregation bears no relevance to when a limitation period would run.
60The presumptive limitation period expires on June 20, 2009, well before Class Counsel were involved. Consequently, even if Pine can establish that the limitation period did not start prior to June 20, 2009 due to lack of discoverability (for which Class Counsel would not be involved), then any argument that discoverability was delayed due to the conduct of Class Counsel would only be based on Pine’s knowledge or lack of knowledge of facts that could have started the limitation period.
61It is not for the court on this motion to address the strength of Pine’s limitations rebuttal. Regardless, Pine led no evidence as to how any information about the incarcerations and administrative segregation of others could be relevant to a limitations rebuttal, and I see no such relevance.
62Consequently, based on the lack of relevance, I would not order production.
Issue 3: Standing of Epiq
63Pine submits that Epiq is in a fiduciary relationship with all class members and, as such, should not be taking a role on this motion.
64Epiq vigorously rejects the submission that it is in a fiduciary relationship with the class members.
65It is not necessary on this motion to determine whether a fiduciary relationship exists. In either event, Pine’s submissions concerning Epiq’s standing on this motion are without merit.
66Epiq is the court-appointed claims administrator and a neutral third-party; it is not aligned with any participant in the claims process. However, an important component of Epiq’s role as claims administrator is the protection of the private and confidential information entrusted to it.
67Further, Epiq dealt directly with Slattery regarding the circumstances in which Slattery accessed, downloaded, and initially refused to return the Confidential Electronic File. In these circumstances, Epiq is both a necessary fact witness and a proper participant on this motion.
Order and costs
68For the above reasons, I dismiss Pine’s motion. If the parties cannot agree on costs, Epiq, the representative plaintiffs, and Canada shall deliver costs submissions of no more than three pages each by June 23, 2026. Pine shall deliver responding costs submissions of no more than three pages for each of the written costs submission received, to be delivered by July 7, 2026. Epiq, the representative plaintiffs and Canada may file a reply costs submission of no more than one page each by July 14, 2026.
GLUSTEIN J.
DATE: 20260526
CITATION: Brazeau v. Attorney General of Canada, 2026 ONSC 3068
COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-532625-00CP
CV-17-570771-00CP (Reddock v. Attorney General of Canada)
DATE: 20260526
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
CHRISTOPHER BRAZEAU and DAVID KIFT
Plaintiff
AND:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Defendant
AND BETWEEN
JULLIAN JORDEA REDDOCK
Plaintiff
AND:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Defendant
REASONS FOR DECISION
Glustein J.
Released: May 26, 2026