Odette Jobin-Laberge

The syndic of the Ordre des pharmaciens began an inquiry into allegations that generic drug manufacturers were providing illegal kickbacks to pharmacists.

The syndic requested documents from a manufacturer under s. 122 of the Professional Code.

The manufacturer refused, arguing the provision only applied to professionals.

The syndic sought and obtained a general law injunction to compel disclosure.

The Court of Appeal reversed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that s. 122 applies to third parties and that a general law injunction is available to enforce the syndic's investigatory powers despite the existence of specific penal remedies in the Code.

The plaintiff sued her attending physicians and a prosthesis manufacturer for medical malpractice, claiming damages for pain, suffering, and reactive depression.

During examination on discovery, the defendants sought disclosure of the plaintiff's psychiatric records.

The plaintiff refused, citing professional secrecy.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that by claiming damages for psychological harm, the plaintiff implicitly waived the confidentiality of her medical records.

The defendants demonstrated the apparent relevance of the records for their defence, and the trial judge correctly dismissed the plaintiff's objection to disclosure.

The trustee in bankruptcy of a wholly-owned subsidiary sued the directors of the subsidiary, alleging they breached their fiduciary duty and duty of care under the Canada Business Corporations Act by implementing a joint inventory procurement policy that favoured the parent company to the detriment of the subsidiary's creditors.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that directors owe a fiduciary duty to the corporation, not to its creditors, even when the corporation is in the vicinity of insolvency.

The Court also held that while directors owe a duty of care to creditors, the directors' actions in this case were reasonable business decisions protected by the business judgment rule.

The trustee's claim under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act for reviewable transactions was also dismissed.

The appellant entrusted the management of a large sum of money to the respondent securities dealer, who mismanaged the portfolio by making speculative investments on margin contrary to the appellant's retirement objectives.

The trial judge found the respondents entirely liable for the resulting losses.

The Court of Appeal reduced the damages, finding that the appellant had taken control of the account and failed to mitigate its damages by not closing it earlier.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, restoring the trial judge's finding that the mandate remained discretionary and that the appellant, lacking financial expertise, acted reasonably in not intervening earlier.

Damages were awarded for the full period of mismanagement.