J. Kelly

In a proposed class proceeding on behalf of Crown wards allegedly physically or sexually abused before and/or during wardship, the court considered whether the pleading disclosed causes of action in negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against the provincial Crown.

Applying the plain and obvious test on a motion to strike, the court held it was arguable that the Crown, as statutory guardian, owed a private law duty of care analogous to that of a parent and that its obligations could extend to protecting the wards' legal rights, including advising them of claims, preserving evidence, and considering litigation.

The court also held it was not plain and obvious that no fiduciary duty could arise, given the statutory parental relationship and the vulnerability of Crown wards.

The plaintiffs satisfied the cause of action requirement under s. 5(1)(a) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and the defendant's motion to strike was dismissed.

The defendant province brought a motion under Rule 21.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike a developer’s claim alleging breach of a settlement agreement, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation relating to a residential development affected by the Lake Simcoe Protection Act, 2008 and its accompanying protection plan.

The developer alleged the province failed to warn of the legislative changes, failed to ensure the project was grandfathered under transitional provisions, and made public representations that existing developments would not be affected.

The court held that the Act’s broad statutory immunity clause barred claims arising directly or indirectly from the enactment or implementation of the legislation.

It further found the pleading disclosed no viable contractual breach, no private law duty of care, and no basis for negligent misrepresentation.

The claim was struck as it was plain and obvious that it could not succeed.