Yes, Patients Still Have Some Privacy Protections, Even in Disability Insurance Lawsuits
If you are involved in disability insurance litigation, you may be worried about disclosing sensitive private conversations with your therapist. In most disability insurance disputes, your therapy records must be produced to the insurance company. A recent court decision in Ontario shows that you may have the right right to keep sensitive conversations with your therapist from the public eye.
Facts
In H.C. v. SSQ Life Insurance Company Inc., 2024 ONSC 53, the plaintiff sued her insurer for terminating her long-term disability benefits. She claimed that she was totally disabled due to adjustment disorder, major depressive disorder, insomnia, and poor concentration related to personal and marital problems. She had been seeing a psychologist, Dr. Hansen, since 2007.
The plaintiff produced over 100 pages of Dr. Hansen’s unredacted notes, including some “highly personal and irrelevant” notes. However, she redacted an additional 11 pages of notes to remove discussions about her family law and disability litigation, including her engagement in the litigation process with her lawyers.
The Motions
The insurer, SSQ, asked the court to order the plaintiff to produce Dr. Hansen’s complete unredacted clinical notes. The plaintiff argued that those discussions were both irrelevant and sensitive and that disclosing them would harm her privacy and dignity.
The plaintiff brought a cross-motion for a limited sealing order, sealing Dr. Hansen’s clinical notes from the public record, and a publication order anonymizing the plaintiff’s name in the lawsuit.
Unredacted Clinical Notes and Records
Justice Doyle dismissed SSQ’s motion for Dr. Hansen’s unredacted clinical notes. She found that the redacted portions of Dr. Hansen’s notes were irrelevant, and there was no good reason to produce them. The redacted portions involved discussions of the plaintiff’s lawsuit, her family law file, and her engagement in the court process with her two lawyers. Her sentiments regarding these were of no relevance to the proceedings and would not assist in the resolution of the issues. In addition, disclosure of her litigation strategy and sentiments expressed to her counsel could only prejudice the plaintiff in her family law case and in the disability lawsuit.
Anonymization of Parties’ Names
Justice Doyle granted the plaintiff’s cross motion for the anonymization of the parties’ names and a sealing order with respect to all of the redacted and unredacted clinical records of Dr. Hansen, except for a letter Dr. Hansen had written to the plaintiff’s family law lawyer. The documents contained confidential discussions with the psychologist that touched upon the plaintiff’s biographical core, which would affect her dignity if disclosed.
The court also found that there was a strong public interest in protecting those with mental health issues who are involved in litigation and that sealing the documents would prevent the risk of exposing the plaintiff’s innermost feelings. The court balanced this interest against the importance of the open court principle and concluded that the benefits of the order outweighed its negative effects.
This decision is a victory for patients who seek help for their mental health and expect their privacy to be respected. Therapy records that touch on patients’ core identity and dignity can be protected by the court from public disclosure, unless there is a compelling reason to do so.
Rikin Morzaria is a Toronto civil litigation lawyer at Kinara Law. If you’d like assistance with a legal matter, feel free to reach out to him for a free initial consultation.
