A civil action, including class action, is about compensation for some kind of HARM that is the DIRECT result of NEGLIGENT act(s) by defendant. Def here is also a public body, which will make it a question as to whether the negligent act involved OPERATIONS or POLICY. For example, if safeguards were not in place because of a govt policy decision based on lack of adequate funding, no negligence. So you see the hurdle.
Nevertheless, the tort of abuse of public office (see http://www.bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1058#1058) may be ripe for expansion:
From the plaintiff's perspective, the subjective mental element of the tort presents the most significant challenge. This is particularly true in light of the decision of the BCCA in First National. There is a presumption that the acts of elected officials and civil servants have been performed correctly.
If B.C. courts have not done so expressly, certainly there is tacit recognition that the two-part test articulated in Bourgoin and commented upon in Three Rivers is a valid approach in this jurisdiction. Both parts of the test encompass a sense of dishonesty on the part of the public official. Different terms to connote the concept of dishonesty have from time-to-time been employed by various courts. "Bad faith" and "malice" are other terms that have been used to suggest this aspect of the necessary mental element.
To iterate the two-pronged approach taken by the English courts, it is as follows:
(1) the public official acted with malice or intent to injure; or,
(2) the public official knew both that he had undertaken an act for which he had no authority in law and that his act would cause harm to the plaintiff. (Footnotes omitted)
... The scope of civil liability of regulatory bodies appears to have been greatly expanded by the Court's decision in Finney. In my respectful view, the decision would appear to be in direct conflict with the Court's earlier decisions in Cooper and Edwards. And while it is possible to reconcile the two lines of authority, it is noteworthy that the BC Court of Appeal appears to have concluded that the decision constituted a radical change in the law, such that public bodies, charged with a regulatory responsibility, can be found to owe a private law duty of care to the member of the public. If the regulatory bodies conduct can be construed as "reckless," then it is likely that damages will lie, even if there is a statutory immunity provision which seeks to insulate the agency from claims in negligence.
So recklessness, too, may be a factor.
The test with public authorities is a high one because the theory is, as taxpayers, we've already paid once. Further damages if you succeed mean we'll have to pay a second time to satisfy the judgment.
At this point, I would estimate your chance of success at something less than zero, but if you succeed, I'll be the first to sign.
Do, however, be on the lookout for any evidence of identity theft and track the heck out of it. The sudden interest in govt accountability as a result of this http://bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1078#1078 may bring it forward.
Good luck with it!