Dr. Lavranos Named as Applicant in Nova Scotia Health Records Challenge
In December 2024, CBC News reported on a legal application filed in the Nova Scotia Supreme Court challenging recent amendments to Nova Scotia’s Personal Health Information Act. Our founder, Dr. Aris Lavranos, is one of the named applicants in that proceeding. To be clear, Acuity Medical Law is not involved in litigating this matter. The case is being brought by lawyers supported by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, a national non-profit organization that funds constitutional litigation. Dr. Lavranos is named as an individual applicant alongside fellow physician Dr. Chris Milburn and three other Nova Scotian citizens. This post provides context on what the case is about and why Dr. Lavranos, in his personal capacity as a physician and Nova Scotian, has lent his name to it.
What the Law Changed
Earlier in 2024, the Nova Scotia government amended the Personal Health Information Act through section 110 of the Financial Measures Act. The amendments give the provincial health minister (or anyone appointed on her behalf) the power to compel doctors and other healthcare providers to disclose patients’ personal health information to the government. That disclosure is authorized for three stated purposes: planning and management of the health system, resource allocation, and creating or maintaining electronic health record programs such as the YourHealthNS app.
The critical feature of these amendments is that patient consent is not required. A physician can be compelled to hand over a patient’s identifiable medical records (records containing names, birthdates, diagnoses, medications, and the full clinical history of that person’s healthcare) without that patient’s knowledge or agreement.
The Core Problem: Consent Is Absent
The legal challenge does not dispute that health system planning and resource allocation are legitimate government functions, or that making health records accessible to patients through an app is without potential benefit. The challenge is to the mechanism; specifically, the fact that this system operates without consent as its foundation.
As the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms has pointed out in the application it is pursuing, aggregate, anonymized data is sufficient for planning and resource allocation purposes. There is no obvious reason why the government needs identifiable patient records, complete with names and dates of birth, to understand how many patients are presenting to emergency departments or where to direct healthcare resources. The fact that the legislation demands identifiable information, rather than de-identified data, is one of the central concerns raised in the application.
The application argues that these amendments infringe sections 7 and 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: the right to life, liberty, and security of the person, and the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The position of the applicants is that medical records represent some of the most intimate and personal information that exists about any individual, and that the state should not be able to access them without consent.
Why Dr. Lavranos Is Named as an Applicant
Dr. Lavranos is one of two physicians named in the application, alongside Dr. Chris Milburn. Both are participating in their personal capacities as practicing doctors whose professional obligations they believe are placed in direct conflict by the amended legislation, a position shared by the other physician-plaintiff in this matter.
The duty of confidentiality between a physician and a patient is not simply a legal formality. It is the foundation of the clinical relationship. Patients disclose information to their doctors (information they may not share with anyone else) because they trust that it will remain private. As stated in the court application, compliance with these amendments would put physicians in violation of their duties of confidentiality and undermine their ability to effectively care for their patients. This concern is not unique to Dr. Lavranos; it is the shared position of the physician-applicants and was also raised publicly by Doctors Nova Scotia when the amendments were first tabled.
Dr. Lavranos is also a member of the Nova Scotia Civil Liberties Association, which is among the named applicants. The NSCLA, alongside the five individual plaintiffs, represents a cross-section of Nova Scotians united by the view that the government’s approach to health data collection exceeds what the law and the Charter permit.
Where the Matter Stands
The Nova Scotia Supreme Court has agreed to hear the challenge. Hearings on standing took place in September 2025. The litigation is being conducted by lawyers provided by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms. The Province has not publicly commented on the substance of the application, stating only that it would not do so while the matter is before the courts. The case is ongoing.
Why This Matters Beyond Nova Scotia
The outcome of this case has the potential to affect how governments across Canada approach the question of health data access. Nova Scotia is not the only province exploring expanded use of health records for system planning and digital health initiatives. If the Nova Scotia Supreme Court finds that the current amendments are unconstitutional, it would signal that patient consent must be embedded in any such framework, a principle with national implications.
As a firm whose work depends entirely on the integrity of the physician-patient relationship, we share the view that medical privacy and the principle of consent are foundational to a functioning healthcare system. We will continue to follow this matter as it proceeds through the courts.
The CBC News article covering the filing of this challenge can be read here: Group files court challenge to Nova Scotia’s personal health information law — CBC News.
