The appellant, a former nurse, appealed the dismissal of her motion for a declaration that her insurer (HIROC) owed her a duty to defend against multiple civil actions.
These underlying actions alleged the tort of intrusion upon seclusion, negligence, breach of statute, and breach of fiduciary duty, stemming from her unauthorized access of patient records to obtain narcotics.
The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no duty to defend.
The court affirmed that the tort of intrusion upon seclusion, whether intentional or reckless, involves conduct that is not "accidental" and thus falls outside the policy's definition of "occurrence" and within the intentional act exclusion.
The court also rejected the argument that denying coverage for intentional privacy breaches would nullify the policy, as it still covered negligent privacy breaches.