March 1973 until July 1973. He was placed in the Capsule program for 11 days and was in the DDT program for three weeks.
[ 86] Ms. Taylor (born 1956) was admitted to Oak Ridge in
January 1976 and remained there until February 1979 to return
again in January 1981, where she was detained until 1986. She
returned to Oak Ridge in 1995. She was placed in the MAPP
from May 18, 1976 to June 26, 1976; May 15, 1978 to June 5,
1978; and January 19, 1978 to February 24, 1978. She was originally admitted to Oak Ridge on a warrant of remand after
being found not guilty of insanity for rape. She was in the Capsule program in December 1976 for two weeks and in June 1977
for 11 days.
4. The pleaded causes of action
[ 87] The plaintiffs plead that the infliction of physical force on
them during the three programs without their bona fide, free,
willing and informed consent constituted the tort of battery.
[ 88] The plaintiffs plead that consent to administer the three
programs was rarely solicited and that when it was solicited,
any consents were invalid having been obtained under duress,
coercion or intimidation. Further, the plaintiffs plead that any
consents were obtained without the patients being advised of the
risks associated with the programs and that there was no scientifically proven value to the programs.
[ 89] The plaintiffs plead that Drs. Barker and Maier were negligent and breached a duty of disclosure in failing to provide
truthful information about the experimental nature of the programs and that the Crown breached its duty of care to review
and supervise its agents at Oak Ridge.
[ 90] The plaintiffs plead that Drs. Barker and Maier had a
fiduciary relationship with the patients at Oak Ridge and
breached their fiduciary obligations in that they, among other
things, (a) conducted unethical human experimentation within
the confines of a maximum-security facility; (b) subjected the
plaintiffs to mind-altering experimentation, inhumane treatment and psychological and physical abuse and torture;
(c) treated the plaintiffs with force and humiliation; and (d) conscripted the plaintiffs without obtaining their bona fide consent
or, alternatively, obtained ineffective consents under coercive
[ 91] The plaintiffs plead that the Crown, through its agents,
owed and breached a fiduciary duty to the plaintiffs. The fiduciary duty was based on the vulnerability of the plaintiffs arising
from the power imbalance inherent in the maximum-security