Norberg v. Wynrib

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Norberg v. Wynrib, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 226 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the fiduciary duty between doctors and patients, and on the limits of consent as a defence in sexual assault.

Laura Norberg was addicted to painkillers, and sought the drugs from Dr. Wynrib under the pretext of an ankle injury. However, her doctor demanded sexual favours in exchange for more drugs. She eventually brought an action against him for sexual assault.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the case on the basis that she consented.

In a unanimous decision, the Court found in favour of Norberg.

Justice McLachlin characterized the duty.

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 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 doctor-patient relationship 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.^[1]