W. Ross Murray

The appellants represented a class of individuals victimized by a gold delivery fraud, having deposited funds into a solicitor's trust account.

They alleged the Law Society of Upper Canada breached a duty of care by failing to properly investigate and monitor the solicitor's trust account after being notified of irregularities.

The Supreme Court of Canada applied the Anns/Kamloops test and held that the Law Society did not owe a prima facie duty of care to the appellants, who were not clients but participants in a third-party business promotion.

The Court further noted that even if a duty existed, it would be negated by residual policy considerations and the statutory immunity provided under the Law Society Act.

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.

The Attorney General for Ontario brought an action against the Bear Island Foundation after cautions were registered against unceded land on behalf of the Temagami Band of Indians.

The Foundation counterclaimed for a declaration of quiet title based on aboriginal rights.

The Supreme Court of Canada found that while the Indians exercised sufficient occupation to establish an aboriginal right, this right was surrendered by subsequent arrangements adhering to the Robinson-Huron Treaty in exchange for annuities and a reserve.

Although the Crown breached its fiduciary obligations under this agreement, the aboriginal right was nonetheless extinguished.

The appeal was dismissed.