2006BCSC1747

Before: Master McCallum

Reasons for Decision

Counsel for the Plaintiff	Michael J. Velletta
Counsel for the Defendant	Michael J. Sutherland
Date and Place of Hearing:	November 2^nd, 2006
	Victoria, B.C.

INTRODUCTION

[1] The Plaintiff was injured in motor vehicle accidents in September 2000 and February 2004. She is employed as an esthetician and collects contact information from her clients. The Defendant wants disclosure of that client information to defend the Plaintiff’s claim for damages. The Plaintiff does not wish to disclose the personal information of her clients. For the reasons that follow I have concluded that the Plaintiff is obliged to disclose the names and addresses of her clients.

BACKGROUND

[2] The Plaintiff was injured in 2 motor vehicle accidents. The actions arising from those claims are set to be heard in April of 2007.

[3] The Plaintiff operates as an esthetician in a hair salon. She has various clients for whom she performs services. In the course of that business she kept an appointment book with personal information, such as names, addresses and telephone numbers, relating to her clients.

[4] One aspect of the Plaintiff’s claim is compensation for loss of business revenue. The Defendant says that he needs the personal information relating to the Plaintiff’s clients in order to be able to test her credibility and verify her claim for loss of revenue. The Defendant intends to contact some or all of the Plaintiff’s clients in that exercise.

DISCUSSION

[5] The Defendant says the appointment book is a relevant document that ought to be produced. The Defendant says that the Plaintiff is obliged to provide the names of her clients pursuant to Rule 27(22). Rule 27(22) requires a person being examined for discovery, absent an order to the contrary, to “give the names and addresses of all persons who reasonably might be expected to have knowledge relating to any matter in question in the action.” There seems little doubt that the book is a relevant document and that the names and addresses fall within the ambit of Rule 27(22).

[6] The Plaintiff does not argue relevance. She agrees to produce the book but wishes to redact the document to obliterate the personal information details concerning her clients. Similarly, she says the court should make an order for disclosure that does not require her to give the names and addresses of her clients. The Plaintiff says the Personal Information Protection Act SBC 2003, Chapter 63 (the “Act ”) protects that sort of information from disclosure. She also says that her business operates in a small centre and she fears the potential harm to her business if her clients are involved in this lawsuit.

[7] The Act governs the collection, use and disclosure of defined personal information. The Plaintiff says the Act applies to her and she is therefore prohibited from disclosing the information. That was the position taken by the plaintiffs in Shilton v. Fassnacht 2006 BCSC 431 in very similar circumstances. The court in Shilton held that the Act did not “limit the defendant’s right under Rule 27(22) to obtain the names and addresses of relevant witnesses”.

[8] Given that ruling and the concession of relevance of the names and addresses the Plaintiff will be obliged to produce the document with the information. The court in Shilton held that the plaintiffs there were not required to disclose telephone numbers and a similar result should obtain here.

CONCLUSION

[9] The Plaintiff will produce a copy of the daytimer document from February 2004 to present date. The Plaintiff is entitled to obliterate any reference to clients’ telephone numbers. Costs of the application are to the Defendant in any event of the cause.

“Master W. McCallum”

Citation:	*Hydamacka v. Carlson,*
	2006 BCSC 1747