Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The case centers on whether a class action regarding psychiatric “depatterning treatments” at the Allan Memorial Institute should proceed against Hôpital Royal Victoria, McGill University, and the Government of Canada.

• The court assessed if the alleged treatments were inadequate and damaging, contrary to recognized medical standards of the time, and if they resulted in compensable harm to direct and indirect victims.

• Consideration was given to the roles of the hospital, McGill University, and the federal government in administering, permitting, or funding the treatments.

• The reliability and admissibility of expert opinions and historical sources cited in support of the plaintiffs’ claims were examined.

• The hospital argued that prior appellate decisions (Morrow and Kastner) barred the current action under stare decisis and that the proceedings constituted an abuse of process.

• The court evaluated whether issues such as causation, damages, and consent required individual determination or could be addressed as common questions in a class action.

Background and facts
The case Hôpital Royal Victoria c. Tanny concerns allegations of psychiatric “depatterning treatments” administered at the Institut Allan Memorial, the psychiatric wing of Hôpital Royal Victoria, between 1948 and 1964. These treatments were conducted by Dr. Ewen Cameron and his team, with funding from the hospital, McGill University, and the Government of Canada. The plaintiffs, representing direct and indirect victims, alleged that these treatments were inadequate and damaging, and did not meet the recognized medical standards of the time. They sought authorization for a class action against Hôpital Royal Victoria, McGill University, and the Attorney General of Canada, claiming these institutions were responsible for the administration, permission, or funding of the treatments.

Procedural history and legal arguments
On July 31, 2025, the Superior Court, presided over by the Honourable Dominique Poulin, authorized the class action against Hôpital Royal Victoria, McGill University, and the Attorney General of Canada. The court analyzed the allegations according to the criteria for class action authorization under article 575 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Hôpital Royal Victoria sought permission from the Quebec Court of Appeal to appeal this judgment, arguing that the principles of stare decisis and abuse of process applied due to previous decisions (Morrow and Kastner) rejecting similar claims. The hospital also contended that the trial judge improperly relied on opinions rather than facts and that certain issues required individual, not common, determination.

Decision and reasoning
The Honourable Geneviève Marcotte, J.C.A., of the Quebec Court of Appeal, rejected the hospital’s application for permission to appeal. The court found that the facts and cause of action in this case differed from those in Morrow and Kastner, as the current allegations involved a systemic and experimental process conducted under the direction of the hospital and McGill University with government funding, rather than a simple action in medical liability against a single physician. The court also found no error in the Superior Court’s consideration of expert and historical sources, nor in its determination that certain issues could be treated as common questions in the class action.

Outcome and costs
The Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed the request for permission to appeal and upheld the authorization of the class action against Hôpital Royal Victoria, McGill University, and the Attorney General of Canada. The successful parties were the respondents, Julie Tanny, Lana Ponting, and the proposed group. No monetary damages or compensation were granted or ordered at this stage; the only financial order was that the hospital pay the legal costs associated with the application for leave to appeal. The total amount of costs or monetary award could not be determined from the decision.