Residents alleged that accommodation charges were inflated to cover healthcare expenses the province should have funded. Alberta asked that the claims be struck before trial. The Supreme Court allowed its appeal in part and struck the pleaded fiduciary duty, negligence and bad faith claims.
This was a pleading decision, not a trial finding that every charge was lawful. Claims not struck were left to the ordinary litigation process. The ruling is important to residential care because it distinguishes policy responsibility and statutory obligations from the exceptional requirements of a fiduciary undertaking.
The lawsuit was brought on behalf of residents who argued that accommodation charges had been raised to cover costs that belonged to the provincial government. At this stage, the Court examined the legal sufficiency of the pleaded claims, not whether the government had actually misallocated funds. It rejected the proposed fiduciary duty because the pleaded government responsibilities did not amount to the particular undertaking of loyalty required for a fiduciary relationship.
The Court also struck the negligence and bad faith claims. It did not end the entire proposed proceeding. The unjust enrichment and Charter equality claims survived for further consideration, with their factual and legal merits unresolved. For Binder Controlled, that distinction matters when institutional fee decisions affect vulnerable residents. Public authorities must be held to the duties actually imposed by law, and a failed fiduciary claim does not necessarily defeat every statutory, constitutional or restitutionary challenge to a charging policy.