Carina Lentsch

The self-represented plaintiffs brought three separate actions against two hospitals, seven physicians, and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, alleging medical malpractice, falsification of records, breach of privacy, and improper regulatory investigations relating to psychiatric treatment provided between 2004 and 2012.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment and motions to strike the claims.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the motions and dismissed all three actions.

The court found that the claims against the hospitals and physicians were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as the plaintiffs had discovered the claims years before commencing the actions.

The court also held that the hospitals were not vicariously liable for the actions of independent physicians.

The claims against the College were struck because the College owes no private law duty of care to complainants, and the actions constituted an abuse of process by attempting a collateral attack on the statutory complaints and review process.

The plaintiff brought a dental malpractice action against the defendants for defective implant surgery and dentures.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court applied the subjective and modified objective tests for discoverability and found that the plaintiff did not discover that a legal proceeding would be an appropriate remedy until the defendants refused to repair his dentures at no cost.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

A former director and investor brought a motion for summary judgment alleging negligent misrepresentation by corporate directors, the chief financial officer, and an engineering consultant arising from a private placement investment that later became worthless after the corporation entered receivership.

The plaintiff alleged misrepresentations concerning reserve reports, a bank borrowing base notice, and the intended use of proceeds of the financing.

The court held that many alleged representations were made to the plaintiff in his capacity as a director rather than as an investor, raising significant duty of care issues and rendering reliance problematic.

The court also found genuine issues requiring a trial regarding whether misrepresentations occurred, whether they were negligent, and whether reliance was established.

In addition, most claims were found to be statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion seeking leave to amend a notice of action and extend the time to file and serve a statement of claim arising from alleged medical negligence following a bicycle accident.

The plaintiff had failed to file a statement of claim within the time required by the Rules of Civil Procedure and sought relief after receiving an administrative dismissal notice.

The court considered the principles governing extensions of time under the Rules of Civil Procedure, including whether the extension would advance the just resolution of the dispute without causing prejudice to the defendants.

Despite the delay and the potential expiry of limitation periods, the court found that an extension would not cause unfair prejudice and would promote the just resolution of the dispute.

The court granted extensions to file and serve the statement of claim while leaving limitation and statutory notice issues to be determined later.