Rumley et al. v. British Columbia, (2001) 157 B.C.A.C. 1 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie and Arbour, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 13, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2001), 157 B.C.A.C. 1 (SCC);2001 SCC 69;9 CPC (5th) 1;10 CCLT (3d) 1;[2001] SCJ No 39 (QL);205 DLR (4th) 39;275 NR 342;[2001] 3 SCR 184;108 ACWS (3d) 775;95 BCLR (3d) 1;JE 2001-1970;[2001] 11 WWR 207;157 BCAC 1

Rumley v. B.C. (2001), 157 B.C.A.C. 1 (SCC);

    256 W.A.C. 1

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Temp. Cite: [2001] B.C.A.C. TBEd. OC.023

Her Majesty The Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia (appellant) v. Leanne Rumley, John Pratt, Sharon Rumley, J.S. and M.M. (respondents)

(27721; 2001 SCC 69)

Indexed As: Rumley et al. v. British Columbia

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie and Arbour, JJ.

June 13, 2001.

Summary:

The plaintiffs were residents of a provin­cially run residential school for deaf children which operated from 1950 until 1992. Resi­dents were physically and sexually abused by staff and peers. The plaintiffs, former resi­dents, sued the province for damages. The plaintiffs applied under the Class Pro­ceed­ings Act to have the action certified as a class proceeding, defining the class as former residents, their family members and second­ary abuse victims of former residents.

The British Columbia Supreme Court dismissed the application on the ground that there were no common issues as required by s. 4(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, a class action would not be the preferable procedure for the fair and efficient resolution of the common issues, as required by s. 4(1)(d). The plaintiffs appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported 131 B.C.A.C. 68; 214 W.A.C. 68, allowed the appeal in part. There were common issues, namely the standard of care respecting the negligence and fiduciary duty claims and the issue of punitive dam­ages. The court limited the class to residents at the school between 1950 and 1992 who suffered injury, loss or damage due to sexual abuse at the school. The common issues were identified as (1) whether the province was negligent (systemic negligence) or in breach of its fiduciary duty in failing to take reasonable measures in operating or manag­ing the school to prevent the sexual abuse; (2) if the answer to the first issue was yes, whether the plaintiffs were entitled to puni­tive damages; and (3) if the plaintiffs were entitled to punitive damages, the amount each plaintiff was entitled to. The province appealed, submitting that the Court of Appeal erred in certifying even the narrower class.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal. Both the commonality and preferability requirements of the Act were satisfied.

Practice - Topic 208

Person who can sue and be sued - Indi­viduals and corporations - Status or stand­ing - Class or representative actions - For damages - The plaintiffs were former residents of a provincially run school for deaf children which operated from 1950 until 1992 - Residents were physically and sexually abused by staff and peers - The plaintiffs sued the province for damages for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, educational malpractice, etc., and sought punitive damages - The plaintiffs applied under the Class Proceedings Act for certi­fication of a class proceeding, defining the class as former residents, their family members and secondary abuse victims of former residents - The British Columbia Court of Appeal certified a class proceed­ing on behalf of sexually abused former residents only - There existed common issues (standard of care respecting the negligence, fiduciary duty claims and punitive damages) - The province sub­mitted that the Court of Appeal erred in certifying even the narrower class - The Supreme Court of Canada agreed with the Court of Appeal - Both the commonality and preferability requirements of the Act were satisfied and a class proceeding was appropriate.

Practice - Topic 209.1

Persons who can sue and be sued - Indi­viduals and corporations - Status or stand­ing - Class actions - Members of class - General - [See Practice - Topic 208 ].

Practice - Topic 209.3

Persons who can sue and be sued - Indi­viduals and corporations - Status or stand­ing - Class actions - Certification - Con­siderations (incl. when class action appro­priate) - [See Practice - Topic 208 ].

Cases Noticed:

Hollick v. Metropolitan Toronto (Munici­pal­ity) et al. (2001), 277 N.R. 51; 153 O.A.C. 279 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 1].

Western Canadian Shopping Centres Inc. et al. v. Dutton et al. (2001), 272 N.R. 135; 286 A.R. 201; 253 W.A.C. 201 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 27].

Anderson et al. v. Wilson et al. (1999), 122 O.A.C. 69; 44 O.R.(3d) 673 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Chace v. Crane Canada Inc. (1996), 26 B.C.L.R.(3d) 339 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 31].

Endean v. Canadian Red Cross Society et al., [1997] B.C.T.C. Uned. 766; 148 D.L.R.(4th) 158 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 31].

Statutes Noticed:

Class Proceedings Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 50, sect. 4(1), sect. 4(2), sect. 7 [para. 23].

Counsel:

James M. Sullivan, D. Clifton Prowse and Suzanne M. Kennedy, for the appellant;

Patrick G. Guy and Anne Sheane, for the respondents.

Solicitors of Record:

The Ministry of the Attorney General, Vancouver, B.C., for the appellant;

Davis & Co., Vancouver, B.C., for the respondents.

This appeal was heard on June 13, 2001, before McLachlin, C.J.C., Gonthier, Iaco­bucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie and Arbour, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered orally by McLachlin, C.J.C., on June 13, 2001, with written rea­sons delivered in both official languages on October 18, 2001.