Arne Iversen believes provincial privacy legislation needs to change after struggling for more than a year to learn the identity of a motorist who allegedly hit his vehicle.
Iversen and his wife were at the Hillcrest Health clinic for an appointment on Oct. 31, 2019, where he parked his 2014 Chevy Cruze next to a black SUV in a handicapped spot, he explained. While in the waiting room, he noticed a woman pushing a red walker exit the door to the parking lot.
When the Iversens left the clinic, they found their vehicle had sustained damage to the front left fender. Iversen believes the driver failed to turn her wheels parallel before backing out.
Iversen contacted the clinic and spoke to the receptionist, who said she had an idea about who the other driver might be, he recalled. The receptionist suggested he file a complaint with the Moose Jaw Police Service (MJPS) and a claim with Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI). He did both; SGI indicated damages were $1,070.59.
Meanwhile, a police constable spoke to the receptionist but was allegedly told the health clinic would not provide the name to the police due to patient confidentiality under the Health Information Privacy Act (HIPA).
“It is ludicrous to think that ‘patient confidentiality’ would extend to the facility’s parking lot and protect a hit and run driver while using the facility’s parking lot,” Iversen said. “Parking a vehicle is not medical and the client would not be covered. I also pointed out to the constable that not answering the police officer’s question could be considered obstruction of justice.”
An ongoing investigation
This case is complicated and has many different layers, including the health provider’s privacy, the privacy of the individuals involved, the strength of the information supplied and whether finding more information is possible, Staff Sgt. Randy Jesse explained to the Express.
Jesse made clear that he could not speak to specifics about this case due to privacy issues but could generally speak about how police investigate a situation.
Officers have the right to ask people questions but don’t have the right to demand answers. Police could seek a subpoena or search warrant to attain that information. However, judges would be unlikely to authorize those since they would deem such efforts as “fishing expeditions.”
The MJPS has run this investigation past SGI and the Saskatchewan Health Authority for further clarification.
“The investigation is still open, but investigatively, we’ve exhausted all we have,” said Jesse. “Our attempts to acquire further information are at an end.”
The MJPS will not close an investigation until it is successfully concluded, he added. However, until more information comes forward, officers will take a less active — and more passive — approach to the situation.
Problems with legislation
Iversen’s search for justice kicked off on Nov. 21, 2019. Through letters, he contacted the health clinic, the police service, former MLA Warren Michelson, Corrections, Policing and Public Safety Minister Christine Tell, Premier Scott Moe, Saskatchewan’s information and privacy commissioner and SGI.
“I got good co-operation from Warren Michelson and from the police privacy officer, Rick McKenna, but other than that, it’s just been a zoo. It’s absolute crap is what it is,” Iversen said.
The clinic indicated it could not help Iversen since it was “not responsible for the actions of third parties in our parking lot as their actions are independent of our operations;” the receptionist did not witness who damaged the vehicle and “having ‘an idea’ is not verification of an individual causing damage;” and all employees are sworn to privacy under HIPA legislation.
“If the legislation is the problem, then most definitely (it needs to change),” said Iversen.
Correspondence
In her letter, Tell said it would be inappropriate for a minister or ministry officials to become involved in a police investigation.
“There was no investigation. She didn’t read the stupid letter (I sent),” said Iversen. “She wanted to slough it off and be done with it. It’s the same with the investigation officer with the police … . She (the constable) should have demanded that they co-operate because they had to.”
A letter from the premier’s office indicated Moe could not become involved in individual matters. Iversen was encouraged to follow Tell’s recommendation or seek legal counsel.
An email from the privacy commissioner’s office indicated it would take eight to 12 months to investigate and review the matter.
“I’m entitled an investigation,” Iversen added. “I’m entitled to an answer … . They can at least try.”
