29:
175:. After the source of her pain, an abscessed tooth, was found and treated, her addiction to painkillers remained. After breaking her ankle in 1981, she found a doctor who would prescribe Fiorinal. After this doctor retired, she sought out another who would provide the drug. Starting in 1982, she began seeing Dr. Wynrib, an elderly physician, and he began giving Norberg Fiorinal under the pretext of an ankle injury. In exchange, Wynrib demanded
237:
which constitutes the tort of negligence. In common with all members of society, the doctor owes the patient a duty not to touch him or her without his or her consent; if the doctor breaches this duty, he or she will have committed the tort of battery. But perhaps the most fundamental characteristic of the
236:
The relationship of physician and patient can be conceptualized in a variety of ways. It can be viewed as a creature of contract, with the physician's failure to fulfil his or her obligations giving rise to an action for breach of contract. It undoubtedly gives rise to a duty of care, the breach of
223:
on behalf of
Norberg, but stops short of recognizing a fiduciary duty. The majority does not believe that sex is a power that can be transferred. Even though the majority discusses consent and its vitiation, they still treat the facts as an exchange between two parties.
241:
is its fiduciary nature. All the authorities agree that the relationship of physician to patient also falls into that special category of relationships which the law calls fiduciary.
252:
204:
324:
329:
200:
319:
171:
Laura
Norberg had severe pains in her jaw and frequent headaches in 1978. To remedy this problem, her sister offered her
238:
195:. Second, can the relationship between Norberg and Wynrib be characterized as fiduciary and therefore give rise to a
97:
304:
117:
148:
34:
275:
299:
203:
dismissed the case on the basis that she consented. The case was given leave to the
Supreme Court. The
28:
196:
216:
93:
228:
113:
220:
105:
156:
121:
257:
192:
160:
152:
313:
176:
86:
60:
101:
187:
There are two main issues in this case. First, the sexual assault falls under the
109:
172:
179:. She eventually brought an action against him for sexual assault.
188:
155:
between doctors and patients, and on the limits of consent as a
231:(as she then was) characterized the duty differently:
253:
List of
Supreme Court of Canada cases (Lamer Court)
132:
127:
77:
69:
59:
49:
42:
21:
8:
268:
205:Women's Legal Education and Action Fund
18:
207:acted as an intervener in this case.
7:
300:full text from Supreme Court Reports
276:SCC Case Information - Docket 21924
14:
201:British Columbia Court of Appeal
27:
1:
325:Supreme Court of Canada cases
54:Laura Norberg v Morris Wynrib
16:Supreme Court of Canada case
239:doctor-patient relationship
346:
227:Concurring in the result,
215:Writing for the majority,
147:, 2 SCR 226 is a leading
330:1992 in Canadian case law
82:
26:
278:Supreme Court of Canada
149:Supreme Court of Canada
35:Supreme Court of Canada
320:Canadian tort case law
305:intervener application
98:Claire L'Heureux-Dubé
197:fiduciary obligation
219:found an award of
114:Beverley McLachlin
140:
139:
118:William Stevenson
337:
288:
285:
279:
273:
221:punitive damages
151:decision on the
144:Norberg v Wynrib
106:Charles Gonthier
94:GĂ©rard La Forest
91:Puisne Justices:
78:Court membership
31:
22:Norberg v Wynrib
19:
345:
344:
340:
339:
338:
336:
335:
334:
310:
309:
296:
291:
286:
282:
274:
270:
266:
249:
213:
185:
169:
122:Frank Iacobucci
89:
44:
38:
17:
12:
11:
5:
343:
341:
333:
332:
327:
322:
312:
311:
308:
307:
302:
295:
294:External links
292:
290:
289:
280:
267:
265:
262:
261:
260:
258:Fiduciary Duty
255:
248:
245:
244:
243:
212:
209:
184:
181:
177:sexual favours
168:
165:
161:sexual assault
153:fiduciary duty
138:
137:
134:
130:
129:
125:
124:
84:Chief Justice:
80:
79:
75:
74:
71:
67:
66:
63:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
32:
24:
23:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
342:
331:
328:
326:
323:
321:
318:
317:
315:
306:
303:
301:
298:
297:
293:
284:
281:
277:
272:
269:
263:
259:
256:
254:
251:
250:
246:
242:
240:
234:
233:
232:
230:
225:
222:
218:
210:
208:
206:
202:
198:
194:
190:
182:
180:
178:
174:
166:
164:
162:
158:
154:
150:
146:
145:
135:
131:
128:Reasons given
126:
123:
119:
115:
111:
107:
103:
99:
95:
92:
88:
87:Antonio Lamer
85:
81:
76:
72:
68:
64:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
36:
30:
25:
20:
283:
271:
235:
226:
214:
186:
170:
143:
142:
141:
102:John Sopinka
90:
83:
53:
33:
229:McLachlin J
217:La Forest J
136:La Forest J
314:Categories
167:Background
110:Peter Cory
70:Docket No.
43:Hearing:
287:p 270–71
65:2 SCR 226
61:Citations
45:Judgment:
247:See also
211:Decision
173:Fiorinal
133:Majority
193:battery
157:defence
199:? The
183:Issues
73:21924
264:Notes
189:tort
191:of
159:in
316::
163:.
120:,
116:,
112:,
108:,
104:,
100:,
96:,
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
