BԪַ

Skip to content

B.C. Appeal Court sides with mom in case involving access to parental medical records

Court strikes down legislation as potentially giving access to BԪַintensely private informationBԪַ

The British Columbia government has a year to fix its child protection laws after an Appeal Court panel found the legislation unreasonably gave social workers power to access parentsBԪַ highly sensitive medical information.

The B.C. Court of Appeal struck down a section of B.C.BԪַs Child, Family and Community Service Act, finding it allowed social workers to look at a parentBԪַs medical records without consent, a search warrant or a court order.

The three-judge panel found part of the act unconstitutional because it lacked safeguards to protect parentsBԪַ deeply personal medical information, violating the CharterBԪַs guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure.

The court found the act allowed child welfare workers with the Ministry of Children and Family Development to access a parentBԪַs information through public bodies, including hospitals and medical clinics.

The section of the act was not BԪַminimally intrusiveBԪַ as a lower court found and could give access to BԪַintensely private informationBԪַ that may not have been a necessary part of an investigation, the panel says in its ruling.

Advocacy groups that intervened in the case say the courtBԪַs decision is a victory for parents and will force the province to bring in the proper safeguards.

The appellant is a mother of three from Prince George, B.C., who has a history of trauma and mental-health issues.

The ruling cites the writings of Steven Penney, a criminal law professor at the University of Alberta, whose analysis of the BԪַreasonablenessBԪַ of searches and seizures under the Charter informed the courtBԪַs findings.

In a phone interview Tuesday, Penney said the B.C. Court of Appeal found the legislation gave front-line child protection workers access to a subjectBԪַs medical information without having to demonstrate if a request for that information was reasonable.

Penney said those working in child protection are doing what they feel is needed during investigations, but the discretionary power to access parentsBԪַ medical information lacked BԪַchecks and balances.BԪַ

BԪַBut it still gave them sort of this unfettered latitude to obtain potentially highly intimate, highly personal, highly sensitive information without really having to demonstrate that the need for that evidence outweighed the privacy and dignity interests (of) the people to whom the information related, to the parents,BԪַ he said.

Penney said the court had to strike a balance between the stateBԪַs interest in protecting children from abuse and the privacy interests of parents.

The broad powers given to child protection workers made the law BԪַhighly vulnerable to this kind of challenge,BԪַ he said.

The Appeal Court found the act didnBԪַt set out clear rules to access parental medical records, finding state interference with such information could have a chilling effect on parents seeking help and have a negative affect on relationships with health-care providers.

Bety Tesfay, a lawyer with West Coast Legal Education and Action Fund, which intervened in the case, said the ruling is a milestone and BԪַimportant victory for parentsBԪַ right to privacy.BԪַ

Tesfay said the child protection system is more akin to a BԪַfamily policingBԪַ system that regulates, surveils and punishes parents rather than focusing on family well-being, which her organization is pushing for.

A system that recognizes children are better off with their families, Tesfay said, would be more BԪַcollaborative and respectful of the dignity and autonomy of (a) parent.BԪַ

She said parents and caregivers from marginalized and vulnerable communities are BԪַdisproportionately impacted by laws that donBԪַt have adequate procedural safe grounds.BԪַ

Maegen Giltrow, a lawyer who acted for the B.C. Civil Liberties Association as another intervener in the case, said the court recognized how problematic the law was.

She said jurisdictions such as Ontario require child protection workers to seek consent or judicial authorization to access sensitive personal information.

BԪַYou can still fulfil the important mandate of child protection while having proper safeguards and oversight as opposed to sort of fishing expeditions into peopleBԪַs personal records,BԪַ she said.

READ MORE:





(or

BԪַ

) document.head.appendChild(flippScript); window.flippxp = window.flippxp || {run: []}; window.flippxp.run.push(function() { window.flippxp.registerSlot("#flipp-ux-slot-ssdaw212", "Black Press Media Standard", 1281409, [312035]); }); }