British Columbia v. Philip Morris International, Inc.

Coram:

• Unanimous: Justice Russell Brown (Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Gascon, Rowe, and Martin JJ. concurring)

Case Summary:

This case concerned whether the province of British Columbia (BC) was required to provide Philip Morris International, Inc. with access to databases containing individual health care information as part of a lawsuit filed by BC against tobacco companies.

Key Legal Issues:

1. Access to Evidence: Whether a tobacco company can gain access to databases containing health care information about individual residents as part of a legal defense in a lawsuit.
2. Interpretation of Statutory Provisions: Understanding the limitations imposed by the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act regarding the sharing of individual-level health care information.

Background:

• In 2000, BC enacted the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act (the Act), which enabled the province to sue tobacco companies for health care costs associated with tobacco use. The Act was upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court in 2005.
• In 2001, BC filed a lawsuit against Philip Morris International and other tobacco companies, seeking to recover health care costs on an aggregate basis, meaning the lawsuit was on behalf of the entire population of insured persons rather than any specific individual.
• To substantiate its claims, BC relied on several databases containing individual health care information from 1991 to 2011, including medical costs, prescription drug usage, and health coverage status.
• Philip Morris requested access to these databases to challenge BC’s evidence, arguing that they were essential for a fair trial. The Act, however, restricts sharing individual-level data when the province sues on an aggregate basis.
• BC offered access to individual-level data at a Statistics Canada Research Data Centre under strict controls, but Philip Morris found this insufficient and sought direct access to the databases with identifying information removed and records linked across databases for ease of analysis.

Supreme Court of Canada Ruling:

Unanimous Opinion (Justice Brown):

• No Obligation to Share Databases: The Supreme Court ruled that BC was not required to provide the requested databases directly to Philip Morris, even with identifying information removed. The databases contained individual-level health care information, which the Act explicitly protected from being shared in aggregate lawsuits.
• Interpretation of the Act: Justice Brown emphasized that the Act’s protection extended to all documents related to individual health care benefits, regardless of whether the individuals could be identified. The lower courts were wrong to focus on the relevance of the databases rather than the kind of information the Act prohibited from being shared.
• Trial Fairness: The Court rejected the notion that denying Philip Morris access to the databases would lead to an unfair trial. The Act provided mechanisms to ensure fairness, such as allowing access to the databases if an expert witness relied on them in court. The Court also noted that BC could be required to provide a “statistically meaningful sample” with identifying information removed under a different provision of the Act.

Impact of the Decision:

• The ruling solidified the protection of individual health care information under the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, ensuring that such data cannot be disclosed in aggregate lawsuits against tobacco companies.
• The decision aligned with a similar ruling by the New Brunswick Court of Appeal in 2016, ensuring consistency in the application of similar statutes across different provinces.

The Supreme Court’s decision reinforced the confidentiality of individual health care information in legal actions brought by provinces against tobacco companies. It upheld the statutory framework that prevents the disclosure of such data, even when it is aggregated and de-identified, thereby balancing the province’s right to sue with the protection of individual privacy.