Norberg v. Wynrib (1992), 9 B.C.A.C. 1 (SCC);
19 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]
………………..
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.
