Celeste Poltak

In a certified class proceeding concerning alleged systemic abuse and mistreatment of residents at a provincial facility for individuals with developmental disabilities, the plaintiffs brought a Rule 21 motion seeking a pre‑trial determination that the defendant owed the class a duty of care and fiduciary duty.

The defendant opposed the motion, arguing that the existence and scope of such duties required a full evidentiary record and should be determined at the common issues trial.

The court held that deciding only part of the duty analysis prior to trial would improperly fragment the inquiry and risk duplicative consideration of evidence.

Exercising case management powers under s. 12 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, the court directed that the motion not proceed before the common issues trial.

The moving party sought certification of a class action alleging systemic physical, emotional, and sexual abuse of visually impaired students at a provincially operated residential school.

The claim alleged negligence and breach of fiduciary duty arising from the province’s operation and supervision of the institution over several decades.

The court held that the pleadings disclosed viable causes of action in negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, including claims predating 1963.

It found an identifiable class, common issues relating to systemic misconduct, and that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure for resolving the claims.

The proposed representative plaintiff and litigation plan were found adequate, and the action was certified as a class proceeding.