Case information

Fiduciary duty — Crown — Limitations — Damages — Do provisions of Mental Health Act regarding the observation, care and treatment of patients amount to an undertaking giving rise to a fiduciary duty owing to individual patients — Does province owe a fiduciary duty to patients under the Mental Health Act — Does imposition of a fiduciary duty conflict with province’s duty to the public — Do provisions of the Mental Health Act override Crown immunity for a breach of fiduciary duty claim — What is the proper legal framework for determining whether care provided by physicians to patients should be assessed by the professional standard of care or by fiduciary duty — What is the correct approach to interpreting statutory limitation periods for individuals acting in furtherance of statutory duties and what is the proper legal test for determining when protection of such provisions should not apply — Should assessment of general damages in personal injury cases be conducted differently depending on the cause of action asserted and in what types of personal injury cases should the Andrews cap apply?

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Twenty-eight men who had been involuntarily committed between 1966 and 1983 to a unit of the Oak Ridge Division of the Mental Health Centre in Penetanguishene, Ontario, commenced claims against two of the unit’s clinical directors and the Province of Ontario. Twenty-seven plaintiffs claimed programs administered on them were tortious and caused harm with no therapeutic benefit; one claimed he lived in fear of being subjected to the programs. Negligence claims were abandoned at trial. The trial judge found and awarded damages for breach of fiduciary duty, battery, assault, vicarious liability, and knowingly assisting liability. The Court of Appeal allowed appeals and cross-appeals in part, dismissed one claim and modified some damages awards.