Alec Yarascavitch

Following a successful motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim, the defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that while the self-represented plaintiff made unfounded allegations, his conduct did not rise to the level of reprehensible or scandalous behaviour required for an elevated costs award.

The court awarded the defendants their costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendants moved to strike the self-represented plaintiff's statement of claim under Rules 21.01(1)(b) and 25.11.

The claim arose from the College's investigation and disposition of the plaintiff's complaint against a physician.

The court found the statement of claim was devoid of material facts and failed to articulate any recognized cause of action.

Furthermore, section 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act rendered the allegations incapable of proof, and section 38 provided statutory immunity to the College.

The statement of claim was struck without leave to amend.

The plaintiff brought a motion on the eve of trial to remove the defendant's lead counsel of record, alleging that the defence lawyer improperly used Summonses to Witness to obtain pre-trial disclosure of confidential medical records.

The plaintiff argued that the cover letters accompanying the summonses coerced witnesses into providing documents before trial to avoid attending court during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a reasonably informed member of the public, reading the summons and cover letter as a whole, would not interpret them as an attempt to obtain improper pre-trial discovery.

The plaintiff's alternative request to quash the summonses was reserved to the trial judge.

This decision addresses a challenge to the admissibility of an expert witness, Dr. David Gladstone, during a medical malpractice trial.

Counsel for the defendants argued that Dr. Gladstone was not impartial or objective and was in a conflict of interest due to a prior treating relationship with the plaintiff.

The court found that Dr. Gladstone had disclosed the prior relationship to the plaintiffs' counsel, believed it irrelevant to his expert opinion, and was confident in his objectivity.

The court also clarified that treating physicians can act as medical experts, with their duty solely to the adjudicative body, not to advocate for former patients.

The judge qualified Dr. Gladstone as an expert and permitted him to testify, criticizing the defendants' counsel for raising the challenge for the first time at trial as a 'trial by ambush'.

The court addressed a dispute in a medical malpractice jury trial regarding the wording of causation questions and whether the jury should provide reasons for their findings.

The plaintiffs proposed "caused or contributed to" language, while the defendants advocated for "but for" and requested reasons.

The court accepted the plaintiffs' "caused or contributed to" language, finding no compelling reason not to translate the "but for" test into everyday language, and rejected the request for the jury to provide reasons, citing the risk of confusion and violation of jury secrecy.