In Corriveau v. Canada, 2025 FC 650, the underlying class action claimed that the RCMP was “responsible in negligence for the misconduct of the designated physicians who conducted medical examinations as part of the RCMP employment application process.” During the relevant time, the RCMP application process had “included a medical examination by a designated physician to ensure fitness for duty.”
Canada had previously admitted it was vicariously liable for the actions of two doctors, out of 26 that it had the names of, “for assault and battery, including sexual assault and battery” during medical examinations, but it denied direct liability to class members and for systemic negligence, failure to investigate or that it “covered up complaints about the conduct of the doctors during medical examinations.”
In July 2024, the Federal Court ordered that the representative plaintiff provide particulars on “inappropriate and unnecessary” or “improper and invasive” procedures and how those would be distinct from allegations of sexual assault, assault, or battery. It also ordered particulars on the actions that would support a punitive damages award and the plaintiff's allegations of abuse of power, bad faith, and misfeasance of public office. Finally, it also requested particulars on allegations that the RCMP acted knowingly and with intention.
The plaintiff later provided the particulars to Canada, which Canada said were deficient. The plaintiff listed a number of particulars and specified that they “may or may not constitute sexual assault, assault, and/or battery depending on the individual circumstances of each class member.”
Justice Ann Marie McDonald noted that Canada has a high onus to demonstrate that it is plain and obvious that no reasonable cause of action is disclosed in the pleading “regarding the non-sexual tortious conduct alleged.”
The court is to assume that the facts are true and can be proven. As such, she said she could not accept Canada’s assertion that the particulars given were “devoid of any actual particulars.”
“The conduct and actions of these doctors will have to be considered in the context of the examination itself,” she said. “Such considerations will undoubtedly fall along a spectrum. This is not a binary assessment — the distinction between inappropriate conduct and sexual misconduct is not as clearly demarcated as Canada suggests.”
“While sexual misconduct represents the most egregious form of alleged conduct and may be more readily identifiable, the distinction between conduct with sexual overtones and conduct without such overtones in the context of a medical examination may be subtle and subjective,” she added. “In other words, whether a particular act during a medical examination is sexual in nature is not always clear-cut and can vary based on individual perception and experience.”
The court was satisfied that the particulars identified the procedures of a non-sexual nature that may later be found to be “inappropriate and unnecessary” or “improper and invasive” and found that Canada’s assertion that these aspects were not sufficiently pleaded was without merit.
“While this class proceeding may involve an assessment of conduct more broadly than Canada would prefer, that is irrelevant to the question of whether a reasonable cause of action has been pled by the plaintiff,” wrote Justice McDonald.
She also noted that Canada “has been aware that the misconduct claims go beyond sexual misconduct.”
The court found that Canada was provided with ample facts and details that the plaintiff is relying on to support the negligence claims advanced, and “cannot reasonably assert that it does not know the case to be met.”
The particulars also outlined the facts to support a claim for punitive damages, the court said, finding that the particulars were sufficient. Canada had not “established any basis upon which the court should strike out these pleadings.”
“These common issues relate directly to the pleadings that Canada sought to have struck as addressed above,” said Justice McDonald. “As I am not granting Canada’s motion to strike the pleadings, I am likewise not granting their related request to amend the common issues.”
The motion was dismissed.
“We are pleased with the decision,” said counsel for the plaintiff, Megan McPhee of Kim Spencer McPhee Barristers P.C. “We are moving ahead with summary judgment and look forward to the court determining the claim on its merits based on a full evidentiary record.”
The plaintiff was also represented by Won Kim.
Counsel for the defendant were Bruce Hughson, Deborah Babiuk-Gibson, Wendy Wright, David Shiroky, Christine Williams and Holly Hargreaves of the Attorney General of Canada.
They were not immediately available for comment.
If you have information, story ideas or news tips for Law360 Canada on business-related law and litigation, including class actions, please contact Anosha Khan at anosha.khan@lexisnexis.ca or 905-415-5838.