William S. Clark

The appellant brought a civil action against the respondent, a psychiatrist who sexually assaulted her when she was a patient.

The respondent sought production of the clinical notes and records of the appellant's subsequent treating psychiatrist.

The Supreme Court of Canada recognized a partial privilege for psychiatric records in civil cases, applying the Wigmore criteria.

The Court upheld the Court of Appeal's order requiring limited disclosure of the records subject to stringent conditions protecting the appellant's privacy.

The plaintiff underwent breast implant surgery and subsequently suffered a rupture of one of the implants.

She sued the manufacturer for negligence and failure to warn of the risk of rupture.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the manufacturer had a duty to warn consumers of dangers inherent in the product's use.

While the manufacturer could discharge this duty by warning the prescribing physician under the 'learned intermediary' rule, the warnings provided to the physician in this case were inadequate.

The Court applied a subjective test for causation, finding that the plaintiff would not have consented to the surgery had she been properly warned, and held the manufacturer liable.

The appellant sought full tort recovery against employees who negligently damaged a transformer while performing warehousing services under a storage contract containing a $40 limitation of liability clause.

The Court held that the employees owed a duty of care to the customer, but also held that the doctrine of privity should be relaxed to permit employees to rely on their employer's contractual limitation clause where the clause expressly or impliedly extends to them and they were acting in the course of employment while performing the contracted services.

Applying that framework, the employees' liability was limited to $40.

The appeal and cross-appeal were both dismissed, with one judge dissenting on the cross-appeal and concluding no duty of care existed.