Releasing the report could disrupt enforcement of the Traffic Safety Act: court
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal has ruled that Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI) can withhold a confidential report questioning an individual's medical fitness to drive, overturning a lower court decision that had ordered its disclosure.
The court determined that releasing the report could interfere with future lawful investigations and enforcement of The Traffic Safety Act, allowing SGI to maintain the confidentiality it promised to the individual who submitted it.
SGI, which administers driver's licenses in Saskatchewan, received a confidential report in 2019 raising concerns about an individual's medical fitness to drive. Acting on this report, SGI required the individual to provide medical evidence to verify his ability to drive safely. After reviewing the medical documentation, SGI determined that no restrictions were necessary for his license.
The individual later sought access to the report under The Health Information Protection Act (HIPA), arguing that he had the right to see personal health information held by a trustee. SGI refused, citing a provision in HIPA that allows withholding information if its disclosure could interfere with a lawful investigation or enforcement of legislation. The Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner reviewed the case and recommended that SGI provide the individual with the report. SGI refused, leading to a legal challenge in the Court of King's Bench.
The Court of King's Bench ruled in favour of the individual, finding that SGI had no legal basis for withholding the report. The judge concluded that no ongoing investigation existed and that confidentiality was not essential for enforcing The Traffic Safety Act. He also determined that SGI failed to prove that a lack of confidentiality would reduce the number of reports submitted by the public or medical professionals.
SGI appealed the decision, arguing that maintaining confidentiality was necessary to encourage reporting and ensure road safety. The Court of Appeal ruled in SGI's favour, concluding that the lower court applied the wrong legal test. The court clarified that SGI did not need to prove actual harm but that disclosing the report could create an objective risk of interfering with future investigations.
The court emphasized that SGI's confidentiality policy is crucial in ensuring reports are submitted without fear of retaliation. Evidence presented by SGI, including research and surveys, indicated that confidentiality influences whether medical professionals and the public report concerns about a driver's fitness.
Finding that disclosure posed a real risk of discouraging future reports and undermining enforcement efforts, the Court of Appeal set aside the lower court's order and upheld SGI's decision to withhold the report.