An enforcement creditor applied to have the Respondent Union disclose employment information about a Union member. The Union was not a Party to the underlying Action. The central issue was whether the Personal Information Protection Act, RSA 2003, c P-6.5 prevented the Union from being required to disclose the requested information. After reviewing the applicable legislation and case law, Master Schlosser concluded that the Union was in fact required to disclose the information:

[…] it cannot have been the intent of the PIPA to tie up information and thereby create a modern version of civil debtor’s prison so as to frustrate an execution debtor’s timely satisfaction of their debts. The purpose of the Act is to protect reasonable and legitimate expectations, not illegitimate ones.

In relation to Costs and Rule 5.13 Master Schlosser stated:

The concept in Rule 5.13, with respect to compensating an outsider to an action for providing information, is useful in determining the costs of this application. Privacy Act law is not settled. It was appropriate that the Union attend and make what were very helpful submissions. Accordingly, it is appropriate that the Union receive costs under column 1, item 7(1) for attendance at this application together with any reasonable costs necessarily arising from the production of the information requested by the Applicant.