Norberg v. Wynrib

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Judge: Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Stevenson, JJ.
• Citation: (1992), 138 N.R. 81 (SCC),12 CCLT (2d) 1,138 NR 81,68 BCLR (2d) 29,9 BCAC 1,1992 CanLII 66 (SCC),[1992] 4 WWR 577,[1992] SCJ No 109 (QL),74 BCLR (2d) 2,[1992] ACS no 60,92 DLR (4th) 449,1992 CanLII 65 (SCC),[1992] 2 SCR 318,[1992] CarswellBC 338,34 ACWS (3d) 705,19 WAC 1,[1992] RRA 668,[1992] 2 SCR 226,[1992] 6 WWR 673,[1992] SCJ No 60 (QL)
• Date: 18 June 1992

Norberg v. Wynrib (1992), 138 N.R. 81 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Laura Norberg (appellant) v. Morris Wynrib (respondent) and Women's Legal Education and Action Fund (intervenor)

(21924)

Indexed As: Norberg v. Wynrib

Supreme Court of Canada

La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka,

Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and

Stevenson, JJ.

June 18, 1992.

Summary:

A doctor supplied drugs (Fiorinal) to a female patient, after he discovered she was addicted, in exchange for sexual favours, including simulated sexual intercourse. The patient brought an action for damages against the doctor for the tort of battery (sexual assault), negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.

The British Columbia Supreme Court dismissed the sexual assault claim on the ground that the patient consented. The trial judge dismissed the negligence action, because although the doctor breached his duty to the patient by continuing to prescribe drugs to an addict, the patient was not injured by this conduct. The trial judge dismissed the breach of fiduciary duty claim on the basis of ex turpi causa non oritur actio, where both parties voluntarily par­ticipated in an illicit relationship. The patient appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Locke, J.A., dissenting, dismissed the appeal. The trial judge was correct in dismissing the sexual assault claim on the basis of consent. The court also rejected the claim of breach of fiduciary duty. The court agreed that the doctor breached his duty of care to the patient, but the damage claim was barred by the application of the maxim ex turpi causa non oritur actio. Locke, J.A., agreed that the claims in battery and fiduciary duty failed, but would have awarded $1,000 nominal damages for breach of duty, because the maxim ex turpi causa non oritur actio did not apply. The patient appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal. La Forest, J. (Gonthier and Cory, JJ., concurring), found the doctor liable solely under the tort of battery (sexual assault) on the ground that the consent was ineffective and the maxim ex turpi causa non oritur actio did not bar relief. La Forest, J., assessed $20,000 general damages and $10,000 punitive damages. McLachlin, J. (L'Heureux-Dubé, J., concurring), found the doctor liable for breaching his fiduciary duty to his patient. McLachlin, J., assessed $20,000 general damages for suffering and loss during her period of addiction for which the doctor was responsible, $25,000 general damages for sexual exploitation and $25,000 punitive damages. Sopinka, J., found the doctor liable for breaching his duty to treat the patient arising out of the doctor-patient relationship. Sopinka, J., agreed that the battery claim failed because of consent. Sopinka, J., agreed with La Forest, J.'s, assessment of $20,000 general damages, but stated that it was not an appropriate case for punitive damages. Stevenson, J., did not participate in the judgment.

Actions - Topic 1704

Cause of action - Bars - Ex turpi causa non oritur actio - [See Medicine - Topic 4243 and Torts - Topic 3191 ].

Damage Awards - Topic 627

Torts - Injury to the person - Sexual assault - A doctor was civilly liable in damages for continuing to prescribe a drug addicted patient drugs (Fiorinal) in exchange for sexual favours - La Forest, J. (Gonthier and Cory, JJ., concurring), of the Supreme Court of Canada founded liability in tort and assessed $20,000 general dam­ages and $10,000 punitive damages - McLachlin, J. (L'Heu­reux-Dubé, J., con­curring), founded liabil­ity in breach of fiduciary duty and assessed $20,000 gen­eral damages for suffering and loss during the addiction period for which the doctor was respon­sible, $25,000 general damages for sexual exploitation and $25,000 puni­tive damages - Sopinka, J., founded liabil­ity in breach of the doctor's duty to treat the patient arising from the doctor-patient relationship and assessed $20,000 general damages and no punitive damages - See paragraphs 53 to 59, 101 to 116, 154 to 155.

Damage Awards - Topic 634

Torts - Injury to the person - Medical malpractice - Breach of standard of care - [See Damage Awards - Topic 627 ].

Damages - Topic 1302.1

Exemplary or punitive damages - Sexual assault - [See Damage Awards - Topic 627 ].

Damages - Topic 1310

Exemplary or punitive damages - Negli­gence - Doctors - [See Damage Awards - Topic 627 ].

Damages - Topic 4011

Interference with economic relations - Breach of fiduciary relationship - By doctor - [See Damage Awards - Topic 627 ].

Equity - Topic 3606

Fiduciary or confidential relationships - Fiduciary relationship - What constitutes - A doctor gave drugs to an addicted patient in exchange for sexual favours - McLach­lin, J. (L'Heureux-Dubé, J., con­curring), of the Supreme Court of Canada found the doctor liable in dam­ages for breaching the doctor-patient fiduciary relationship - The doctor exer­cised power on behalf of the patient, had a duty to act in her best inter­ests and breached that fiduciary duty by continuing to feed her addiction rather than helping her obtain treatment - McLachlin, J., stated that the doctor could not rely on the other party's weakness or infirmity as a defence to an action grounded on his failure to discharge his fiduciary duty properly - See para­graphs 61 to 100.

Equity - Topic 3655

Fiduciary or confidential relationships - Breach of fiduciary relationship - Dam­ages - [See Damage Awards - Topic 627 ].

Medicine - Topic 4243

Liability of practitioners - Negligence - Failure to provide care to patient - A doctor gave drugs to an addicted patient in exchange for sexual favours - Sopinka, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada found the doctor liable in damages for breaching his duty to treat the patient arising out of the doctor-patient relation­ship - Sopinka, J., found it unnecessary to categorize the duty as fiduciary and stated that the tort claim failed where there was consent to the sexual contact - Sopinka, J., stated that whether the patient relied on contract or negligence, the duty to treat was not vacated by consent and ex turpi causa non oritur actio did not bar recov­ery - See paragraphs 117 to 153.

Torts - Topic 3191

Trespass - Assault and battery - Battery - What constitutes - A doctor gave drugs to an addicted patient in exchange for sexual favours - La Forest, J. (Gonthier and Cory, JJ., concurring), of the Supreme Court of Canada found the doctor liable in damages for the tort of battery (sexual assault) - La Forest, J., applied, with modification, the contractual concept of unconscionable transaction to vitiate con­sent to the sexual contact - La Forest, J., stated that because of the disparity in the relative positions of the doctor and addicted patient, the weaker party (patient) was not in a position to give consent freely - The doctor exploited the patient's addic­tion - A sex-for-drugs arrangement initi­ated by the doctor with his addict patient was a relationship which was divergent from what the community would find acceptable - La Forest, J., stated that ex turpi causa non oritur actio did not pre­clude recovery - See para­graphs 1 to 52.

Torts - Topic 3201

Trespass - Assault and battery - Defences - Consent - [See Torts - Topic 3191 ].

Torts - Topic 6713

Defences - Consent - Acquiescence - [See Torts - Topic 3191 ].

Cases Noticed:

Morrison v. Coast Finance Ltd. (1965), 55 D.L.R.(2d) 710 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Lloyds Bank Ltd. v. Bundy, [1975] Q.B. 326, refd to. [para. 31].

Waters v. Donnelly (1884), 9 O.R. 391, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Jobidon, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 714; 128 N.R. 321; 49 O.A.C. 83, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Lock (1872), L.R. 2 C.C.R. 10, refd to. [para. 36].

B.W. v. Mellor (1989), 16 A.C.W.S.(3d) 260 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 37].

Lyth v. Dagg (1988), 46 C.C.L.T. 25 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 38].

Harry v. Kreutziger (1978), 9 B.C.L.R. 166 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

Black v. Wilcox (1976), 70 D.L.R.(3d) 192 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

Canada Cement LaFarge Ltd. et al. v. British Columbia Lightweight Aggregate Ltd. et al., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 452; 47 N.R. 191, refd to. [para. 50].

J.L.N. v. A.M.L. (1988), 56 Man.R.(2d) 161; 47 C.C.L.T. 65 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 54].

Vorvis v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1085; 94 N.R. 321; 58 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. McCraw, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 72; 128 N.R. 299; 49 O.A.C. 47, refd to. [para. 55].

Stewart v. Stonehouse, [1926] 2 D.L.R. 683 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

Glendale v. Drozdzik, [1990] B.C.W.L.D. 1839 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 56].

Q. v. Minto Management Ltd. (1985), 15 D.L.R.(4th) 581 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 56].

Harder v. Brown (1989), 50 C.C.L.T. 85 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 56].

Myers v. Haroldson, [1989] 3 W.W.R. 604; 76 Sask.R. 27 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 56].

McInerney v. MacDonald (1992), 137 N.R. 35 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 65].

Canadian Aero Service Ltd. v. O'Malley, [1974] S.C.R. 592, refd to. [para. 68].

Frame v. Smith and Smith, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 99; 78 N.R. 40; 23 O.A.C. 84, refd to. [para. 70].

International Corona Resources Ltd. v. LAC Minerals Ltd., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 574; 101 N.R. 239; 36 O.A.C. 57; 61 D.L.R.(4th) 14, refd to. [para. 70].

Canson Enterprises Ltd. v. Boughton & Co., [1991] 3 S.C.R. 534; 131 N.R. 321; 6 B.C.A.C. 1; 13 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 70].

Reading v. Attorney General, [1951] A.C. 507 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 74].

College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Gillen (1990), 1 O.R.(3d) 710 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 76].

Mazza v. Huffaker (1983), 300 S.E. 2d 833, refd to. [para. 78].

Guerin v. Canada, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335; 55 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 94].

Becker v. Pettkus, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 834; 34 N.R. 384; 117 D.L.R.(3d) 257, refd to. [para. 97].

R. v. Lavallee, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 852; 108 N.R. 321; 67 Man.R.(2d) 1; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 97].

Szafer v. Chodos (1986), 54 O.R.(2d) 663 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 111].

Reibl v. Hughes, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 880; 33 N.R. 361, refd to. [para. 122].

Morrow v. Hôpital Royal Victoria (1989), 35 Q.A.C. 259; 3 C.C.L.T.(2d) 87 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 123].

Brushett v. Cowan (1990), 83 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 66; 260 A.P.R. 66; 3 C.C.L.T.(2d) 195 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 123].

Freeman v. Home Office, [1984] 1 All E.R. 1036, refd to. [para. 124].

Syncrude Canada Ltd. et al. v. Hunter Engineering Co. and Allis-Chalmers Canada Ltd. et al., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 426; 92 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 132].

Davidson v. Three Spruces Realty Ltd. (1977), 79 D.L.R.(3d) 481 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 134].

Giradet v. Crease & Co. (1987), 11 B.C.L.R.(2d) 361, refd to. [para. 142].

Mack v. Enns (1981), 30 B.C.L.R. 337 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 152].

Hegarty v. Shine (1878), 4 L.R. Ir. 288 (Q.B.D.), refd to. [para. 153].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 265(1)(a), sect. 265(2), sect. 265(3) [para. 35].

Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-1, sect. 3.1(1) [para. 7].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Boyle, Christine, and David R. Percey, Contracts: Cases and Commentaries (4th Ed. 1989), pp. 637, 638 [para. 33].

Coleman, Phyllis, Sex in Power Depen­dency Relationships: Taking Unfair Ad­vantage of the "Fair" Sex, 53 Albany L. Rev. 95, pp. 96, 97 [para. 40].

Cope, Malcolm, The Review of Uncon­scionable Bargains in Equity (1983), 57 Australian L.J. 279, generally [para. 138].

Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary (27th Ed. 1988), p. 768 [para. 46 (Eng.)].

Ellis, Mark Vincent, Fiduciary Duties in Canada (1988), pp. 10-11 [para. 74]; 20-24 [para. 112].

Feldman-Summers, Shirley, Sexual Con­tact in Fiduciary Relationships, in Sexual Exploitation in Professional Relation­ships (G.O. Gabbard, ed.) (1989), pp. 195 [para. 77]; 204, 205 [para. 76].

Fleming, John G., The Law of Torts (7th Ed. 1987), pp. 72, 73 [paras. 26, 122]; 74 [para. 122].

Frankel, Tamar, Fiduciary Law (1983), 71 Calif. L. Rev. 795, p. 801 [para. 67].

Grand dictionnaire encyclopédique médical (1986), vol. 1, p. 608 [para. 46 (Fr.)].

Jorgenson, Linda, and Rebecca M. Ran­dles, Time Out: The Statute of Limita­tions and Fiduciary Theory in Psycho-therapist Sexual Misconduct Cases (1991), 44 Okla. L. Rev. 181, generally [para. 65].

Klippert, George B., Unjust Enrichment (1983), pp. 156, 170 [para. 28].

Linden, Allen M., Canadian Tort Law (4th Ed. 1988), pp. 54, 55 [para. 54]; 62, 63 [para. 122].

Morgan, Philosophical Analysis: Permissi­bility of Sexual Contact Between Phy­sicians and Patients (Part 3), generally [para. 77].

Ontario, College of Physicians and Sur­geons, Task Force on Sexual Abuse of Patients, The Final Report (1991), pp. 11 [para. 44]; 12 [para. 46]; 79 [para. 76]; 80 [para. 59]; 84, 85 [para. 108].

Restatement of the Law of Torts (2d) (1965-79), generally [para. 123].

Waddams, S.M., Unconscionability in Contracts (1976), 39 Mod. L. Rev. 369, pp. 381, 382 [para. 138].

Waters, D.W.M., Banks, Fiduciary Obliga­tions and Unconscionable Transactions (1986), 65 Can. Bar Rev. 37, pp. 48, 49 [para. 138].

Wilford, Bonnie Baird, Drug Abuse, A Guide for the Primary Care Physician (1981), pp. 280, 281, 282 [para. 87].

Counsel:

J.J. Camp, Q.C., and Patrick Foy, for the appellant;

I.E. Epstein, for the respondent;

Victoria Gray, for the intervenor.

Solicitors of Record:

Ladner Downs, Vancouver, B.C., for the appellant;

Epstein Wood Logie & Wexler, Vancouver, B.C., for the respondent;

Bull, Housser & Tupper, Vancouver, B.C., for the intervenor.

This appeal was heard on June 19, 1991, before La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Stevenson, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On June 18, 1992, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

La Forest, J. (Gonthier and Cory, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 60;

McLachlin, J. (L'Heureux-Dubé, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 61 to 116;

Sopinka, J. - see paragraphs 117 to 155.

Stevenson, J.A., did not participate in the judgment.