Norberg v Wynrib
A physician who exploits a patient's addiction in exchange for sex breaches fiduciary duty and is liable in battery.
At a glance
Norberg, a young woman addicted to painkillers, exchanged sex for prescriptions from her family doctor. The SCC held the relationship was inherently unequal; her consent was vitiated. The doctor was liable in battery and breach of fiduciary duty.
Material facts
Wynrib was Norberg's family doctor who knew of her addiction. He proposed and implemented a sex-for-prescriptions exchange over several years.
Issues
(1) Was Norberg's consent valid? (2) What causes of action lie in this context?
Held
Consent vitiated by inequality. Battery and breach of fiduciary duty established.
Ratio decidendi
Where there is marked inequality between the parties (e.g. a vulnerable patient and their physician) and the dominant party exploits that vulnerability, consent is vitiated. The physician–patient relationship is a fiduciary one; sexualised exploitation is a clear breach. Battery lies because there is no valid consent.
Reasoning
La Forest J's reasoning anchors the consent analysis in power inequality. McLachlin J's concurrence frames the case as a fiduciary breach — the more frequently cited articulation today. The two grounds may overlap.
Significance
Foundational Canadian decision on professional sexual misconduct and on the limits of formal consent in unequal relationships. Cited in subsequent fiduciary-duty cases including KLB v BC (2003) and Hodgkinson v Simms (1994).
How to cite (McGill 9e)
Norberg v Wynrib, [1992] 2 SCR 226, 1992 CanLII 65 (SCC).
Bench
La Forest J, L'Heureux-Dubé J, Sopinka J, Gonthier J, Cory J, McLachlin J, Stevenson J
Source: scc-csc.lexum.com