What causes of action does the respondent rely on?

The respondent initially relied on breaches of PHIPA to assert a cause of action against the appellants. The statement of claim was subsequently amended to contain only the common law cause of action identified in Jones v. Tsige.

The motion judge held that it was not plain and obvious that the claim based on Jones v. Tsige could not succeed. He noted that the existence of PHIPA and other privacy legislation had been brought to the court’s attention in Jones v. Tsige. He refused to strike the claim under Rule 21.

The respondent’s motion to quash this appeal on the basis that the order is interlocutory in nature was dismissed on the ground that the refusal to stay or dismiss an action based on lack of jurisdiction is a final order: Hopkins v. Kay, 2014 ONCA 514 (CanLII). ISSUE