In an intended class proceeding arising from investor losses in a fraudulent gold scheme using a lawyer's trust account, the appellants alleged the regulator negligently failed to properly investigate and intervene after receiving a complaint about the lawyer's conduct.
The Court of Appeal applied the Anns/Kamloops framework and held that, even assuming sufficient proximity, statutory and judicial immunity, together with compelling policy considerations, negated any private law duty of care in negligence in relation to the regulator's investigatory and disciplinary functions.
Those functions were characterized as inherently judicial or quasi-judicial, and absent pleaded bad faith or malice no negligence action could lie.
The Rule 21 order striking the claim was upheld, as were the costs orders.
