Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Certification of a class action under the Class Proceedings Act for alleged privacy violations by RateMDs.com was the central procedural issue.

• The main legal question was whether the pleadings disclosed a viable cause of action for violation of privacy and unauthorized use of name under the BC Privacy Act.

• The court examined whether health professionals had a reasonable expectation of privacy in information posted on RateMDs.com.

• Consideration was given to whether the use of health professionals’ names and profiles constituted commercial exploitation or simply made them the subject of public information.

• The applicability of statutory defenses, including the public interest exception, was analyzed but found unnecessary to resolve due to the outcome.

• The action was dismissed at the certification stage, with no damages or costs specifically awarded in the judgment.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and factual context

This case arose from the operation of RateMDs.com, a website that publishes profiles of health professionals across Canada, including their names, contact information, and reviews from third parties. The plaintiff, a physician in British Columbia, discovered her profile on the site and alleged that it was created and maintained without her consent. She claimed that the defendants, who operate RateMDs.com, violated her privacy and the privacy of other health professionals by collecting, aggregating, and publishing this information for commercial gain. The plaintiff sought to certify a class action on behalf of health professionals in several provinces with similar privacy legislation, excluding those who had paid subscriptions to the website.

Legal claims and procedural history

The plaintiff’s claims were based on two statutory torts under the BC Privacy Act: violation of privacy (section 1) and unauthorized use of name or portrait for commercial purposes (section 3(2)). She argued that the defendants’ actions in creating and operating the website, soliciting and publishing reviews, and ranking health professionals constituted actionable privacy violations. The chambers judge certified the action as a class proceeding, finding that the pleadings disclosed arguable claims and that the requirements for certification were met. The judge excluded Quebec residents from the class due to insufficiently pleaded claims under Quebec law.

Appeal and issues on review

The defendants appealed the certification order, arguing that the pleadings did not disclose a viable cause of action for either of the privacy torts and that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in the information posted on RateMDs.com. The plaintiff cross-appealed the exclusion of Quebec residents. The court focused on whether the pleadings established a reasonable expectation of privacy and whether the use of health professionals’ names constituted commercial exploitation under the statutory torts.

Court’s analysis and findings

The court found that the pleadings failed to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information published on RateMDs.com. The court noted that the information at issue—names, contact details, and professional reviews—was already publicly available and routinely subject to public scrutiny. The court also determined that the act of aggregating and ranking this information for a commercial website did not transform it into private information or create a viable privacy claim. Regarding the unauthorized use of name claim, the court held that the health professionals were the subject of the website’s content, not being exploited to promote sales, and thus the statutory tort was not engaged.

Outcome and disposition

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the certification order, and dismissed the action. The cross-appeal regarding Quebec residents was also dismissed. No damages were awarded, and the judgment did not specify any order as to costs. The result is that the proposed class action against RateMDs.com and its operators was dismissed at the certification stage, with no further proceedings on the merits.