Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Canada sought to strike out portions of the Statement of Claim related to non-sexual misconduct during RCMP applicant medical exams.

• Allegations involved both sexual and non-sexual tortious conduct by designated physicians acting for the RCMP.

• Plaintiff provided detailed particulars outlining inappropriate and invasive procedures that may not qualify as sexual assault but could still amount to torts.

• The Court ruled that these particulars were sufficiently detailed to disclose a reasonable cause of action under tort law.

• Canada also challenged the claim for punitive damages, arguing a lack of particulars, but the Court found the details adequate at this stage.

• Motion to amend common issues in the class proceeding was dismissed, preserving the scope of the negligence and damages claims.

Background and Facts

The plaintiff, Sylvie Corriveau, initiated a certified class action on behalf of RCMP applicants who were subjected to alleged misconduct by designated physicians during mandatory pre-employment medical examinations. The examinations, conducted as part of the RCMP's hiring process, were intended to assess the fitness of applicants. However, the Statement of Claim alleged that some physicians engaged in inappropriate, unnecessary, improper, or invasive procedures. These included actions that ranged from medically questionable physical examinations to more serious conduct potentially amounting to assault or sexual assault.

Canada (the defendant) brought a motion under Rules 221 and 334.19 of the Federal Courts Rules. It asked the Court to strike portions of the Statement of Claim that referenced non-sexual misconduct and sought punitive damages, arguing that the plaintiff’s pleadings were vague and failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action. Additionally, Canada requested amendments to the certified common issues to remove references to “inappropriate and/or unnecessary procedures.”

Legal Analysis

Justice McDonald reviewed whether the pleadings—taking the facts as true—disclosed a reasonable cause of action. The Court emphasized the high threshold to strike pleadings at this stage, where even a slight chance of success is enough for the matter to proceed.

The Court found that the plaintiff had provided sufficient factual detail in the Particulars document to support her claims. Examples included unnecessary pelvic or rectal exams, invasive questioning about sexual history, and physical force such as slapping or pushing. These were not conclusory statements but material facts capable of being proven at trial.

On the issue of punitive damages, the Court found that the plaintiff had sufficiently pleaded a basis for this relief. The Particulars detailed Canada’s failure to act on known complaints against physicians, its inadequate response to reports of misconduct since 1989, and ongoing failures to supervise or investigate implicated doctors. These actions, if proven, could support a finding of bad faith or abuse of power.

Outcome of the Motion

The Court dismissed Canada's motion in its entirety. It declined to strike the portions of the claim related to non-sexual tortious conduct or the punitive damages request. It also rejected Canada’s attempt to narrow the certified common issues. Justice McDonald concluded that the pleadings were sufficient to proceed and that questions about the nature or severity of the alleged misconduct should be determined on a full evidentiary record, not on a preliminary motion to strike.