Court File and Parties

Citation: Giroux v. Conseil Scolaire Catholique de District Centre Sud, 2010 ONCA 66 Date: 2010-01-27 Docket: C50302 Court of Appeal for Ontario

Before: Weiler, Blair and Rouleau JJ.A.

Between:

François Giroux, Danielle Grenier-Giroux and Chantal Giroux Plaintiffs (Appellants)

and

Conseil Scolaire Catholique de District Centre Sud and Conseil Scolaire Public du District Centre-Sud-Ouest and Karl Doré Defendants (Respondents)

Counsel: Susan M. Vella, for the appellants Christopher M. Moore, for the respondents, Conseil Scolaire Catholique de District Centre Sud and Conseil Scolaire Public du District Centre-Sud-Ouest Louis C. Sokolov and Kelly Doctor, for the respondent, Karl Doré

Heard and released orally: January 14, 2010

On appeal from the order of Justice J.A. Ramsay of the Superior Court of Justice dated February 23, 2009.

Endorsement

[1] The appeal from the decision of the motions judge striking the appellants’ claims as disclosing no reasonable cause of action is allowed.

[2] In our opinion, the standard of review is one of correctness and not, as the respondents allege, one of deference. See Drady v. Canada (Attorney General) 2008 ONCA 659, [2008] O.J. No. 3772, leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada refused [2008] S.C.C.A. No. 492; Attis v. Canada (Minister of Health) 2008 ONCA 660, [2008] 93 O.R.(3d) 35 leave to appeal refused [2008] S.C.C.A. No. 491 ; R. v. Araujo, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 992 at para 18.

[3] The overarching issue on this appeal is whether a claim pleading conduct amounting to breach of fiduciary duty and breach of duty of care ought to have been struck pursuant to Rule 21 on the basis that the damages pled were not reasonably foreseeable and therefore too remote. In our opinion it is not plain and obvious that a teacher, who is alleged to be in breach of his fiduciary duty and duty of care towards a 13 year old student, could not cause reasonably foreseeable psychological damage in a child of ordinary fortitude.

[4] The motions judge’s finding to the contrary was central to his decision to dismiss the claims. We would therefore allow the appeal with respect to Chantal’s claims, with the exception of the causes of action of grooming and intentional infliction of harm, which are abandoned.

[5] With respect to the parents’ direct claim against the Public School Board, we are of the opinion that this claim should not be struck at this stage having regard to the context of the claims going to trial and the other circumstances pleaded.

[6] The claim of Mr. Giroux for defamation is abandoned.

[7] Leave to amend the claim to allege derivative claims under the Family Law Act by the parents was requested. This relief was not in the Notice of Appeal. In our opinion, it is not a proper matter for us and we leave it to counsel to pursue in the Superior Court if so advised.

[8] Costs of the appeal are to the appellants and are fixed in the amount of $12,000, all inclusive.

“K.M. Weiler J.A.”

“R.A. Blair J.A.”

“Paul Rouleau J.A.”