Case information

None.

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.

Civil procedure - Class actions - Crown - Fiduciary duty - Duty of care - Unjust enrichment - What is the test for imposing a fiduciary duty upon the Crown outside the Aboriginal context? - Does the province owe a private law duty to “exercise all reasonable care, skill and diligence with respect to the administration, monitoring and auditing of the public funding provided to operators and the accommodation charges paid to operators by residents”? - If the province does not owe a fiduciary duty or duty of care with respect to setting the maximum accommodation charge, can dismissal of the common law claims against the province be avoided by pleading unjust enrichment? - Do the pleadings support a Charter damages claim? - Should a class action be certified based on any surviving cause of action?

A directive from the provincial Health Minister dated August 1991 indicted that the operators of long term care facilities (LTCF’s) were to charge and collect the maximum accommodation charge permitted by s. 3(1) of the Nursing Homes Operation Regulation.

The representative plaintiffs sought to certify class proceedings under the Class Proceedings Act, contending that the Crown and nine Regional Health Authorities (RHA) do not ensure that the monies paid by the residents of long term care facilities for the “accommodation charge” is used solely for accommodation and meals. As such, they claimed that long term care facility residents had been overcharged. They further argue that it is not efficient for the residents of the long term care facilities to bring separate lawsuits and that enormous time and resources would be saved if the claims were brought together.

The certification judge struck out causes of action for, inter alia, breach of fiduciary duty, but concluded that the action could proceed on several other causes of action. She certified 60 common questions, determined that the class proceeding is the preferable procedure for the fair and efficient resolution of the common issues, and approved of the chosen representative plaintiffs. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal but allowed the representative plaintiffs’ cross-appeal in part, reinstating the allegation that the appellant had breached its fiduciary duty.