Page 144 - FDCC_InsightsSpecialIssue_Published

Products Liability Law
Therapy Unit (STU). They allege they received inhumane treatment, including psychological and physical abuse, due to three STU programs. The individuals sued the government and the doctors administering the programs, seeking damages for breach of fiduciary duty, assault, battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The trial judge concluded that the Andrews cap did not apply and made several awards of general damages above the cap, stating as follows:
[54] The policy considerations underlying the damages cap do not apply here. The sui generis nature of the STU programs, which ended in the early 1980s and have never been repeated, do not compare with the ubiquitous nature of motor vehicle accidents, however catastrophic the results may be. Plaintiffs’ counsel point out that since damage awards in cases of institutional abuse or physicians’ breach of fiduciary duty are infrequent in Canada, a cap is unnecessary to control disparity of assessments or a burden on insurance premiums for psychiatric institutions and physicians. The social cost, as the Supreme Court put it, of a damages award in this unique case is not the same as one in which the insurance industry must continuously spread losses throughout a society in which the vast majority of drivers are insured.
The Court of Appeal agreed with this reasoning, making two further important notes: the claim for general damages did not overlap with any cost of care awards and there was no concern about double recovery.
134
FDCC ANNUAL INSIGHTS 2023