Andrew W. McKenna

The court considered motions for costs personally against George Windsor, who commenced proceedings on behalf of Gilles Jozias Overtveld and Gi-Las Management and Maintenance Ltd. without proper authority.

The action was found to be duplicative, meritless, and a waste of resources.

The court fixed costs on a substantial indemnity basis against Mr. Windsor personally, disallowed him from charging legal fees to the plaintiffs, and set out the principles for awarding costs in such circumstances.

The plaintiff, Cary Beazley, brought a motion to review a single motion judge's order of the Court of Appeal, which had dismissed his motion for an extension of time to appeal the dismissal of his medical malpractice action.

Beazley alleged negligence by physicians for failing to timely diagnose and treat Lyme disease.

The Court of Appeal panel reviewed the motion judge's decision, applying a deferential standard of review, and found no legal error or misapprehension of material evidence.

The panel upheld the motion judge's finding that the proposed appeal lacked arguable grounds, as the expert evidence did not support Beazley's claims regarding Lyme disease testing accuracy or the standard of care.

The review motion was dismissed without costs.

The self-represented moving party sought an extension of time to appeal a summary judgment dismissing his medical malpractice action against numerous doctors and a hospital for alleged failure to diagnose and treat Lyme disease.

The motion judge had previously dismissed the action due to the plaintiff's failure to provide admissible expert evidence on standard of care and causation, and for procedural non-compliance regarding document filing.

The Court of Appeal denied the extension, finding that despite the moving party's bona fide intention to appeal and the relatively short delay, the proposed appeal lacked arguable merit, primarily due to the absence of admissible expert evidence to support the medical negligence claims and the moving party's failure to adhere to procedural rules.

The plaintiff, Cary Beazley, sued 27 physicians and Queensway Carleton Hospital for medical malpractice, alleging delayed diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease.

Three motions for summary judgment were heard: one by the defendant physicians, one by the Hospital, and a cross-motion by the plaintiff seeking a finding of liability in his favour.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims against all defendants, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide admissible expert evidence to support his claims in negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The court also denied the plaintiff's request to file a second expert affidavit and to be qualified as an expert.

This medical malpractice action concerned the plaintiff's claim of chronic pain resulting from the defendants' alleged negligence in treating a ruptured Achilles tendon.

The court found that while Dr. Boivin breached the standard of care by failing to properly immobilize the plaintiff's foot or refer her to a specialist, and Kingsway Health Centre was negligent in administrative follow-up, these breaches did not cause the plaintiff's injuries.

The plaintiff's own non-compliance with medical advice and delay in seeking surgery were found to be the cause of her worsened condition.

The court also found the plaintiff to be an unreliable and incredible witness regarding her injuries and financial losses.

The action was dismissed.

This is an interim ruling on the admissibility of documentary evidence for motions for summary judgment in a medical negligence action.

The self-represented plaintiff, Cary Beazley, alleged delayed diagnosis of Lyme disease against numerous physicians and a hospital.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, and the plaintiff cross-moved for partial summary judgment.

The court addressed the admissibility of 83 documents relied upon by the plaintiff, many of which were incomplete, unsworn, or linked via hyperlinks.

The court emphasized that while procedural fairness is extended to self-represented litigants, fundamental evidentiary rules, such as the requirement for hard copies, proper authentication, and logical probative value, must still be met.

Many of the plaintiff's documents were excluded for failing to meet these criteria, including a video recording of testimony due to lack of authentication and internet information for lack of reliability.

This interim ruling addresses the plaintiff's request to be qualified as an expert witness in the areas of Lyme disease diagnosis and treatment, in the context of summary judgment motions.

The plaintiff, who is self-represented and a party to the action, sought to rely on his self-prepared 'Beazley Reports' as expert evidence.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's request, finding that as a party with a direct financial interest and an advocate, he was unable or unwilling to provide fair, objective, and non-partisan opinion evidence, which is a threshold requirement for expert qualification.

The court also found that the 'Beazley Reports' themselves did not constitute expert reports.