Émilie Roy

The defendants successfully moved to dismiss the plaintiff's ten-year medical negligence action and sought their costs.

The plaintiff, who was self-represented for portions of the litigation, caused significant delays and failed to accept multiple offers to settle.

The defendants sought costs in amounts lower than partial indemnity, recognizing the plaintiff's difficult financial circumstances.

The court further reduced the requested amounts, ordering the plaintiff to pay a total of $270,000 in costs to the defendants.

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.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's medical malpractice action on summary judgment, the successful defendant physicians and hospital sought their costs on a substantial indemnity scale.

The plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, had alleged a delayed diagnosis of Lyme disease against 35 physicians and the hospital.

The court found that the plaintiff acted unreasonably by ignoring repeated guidance regarding the necessity of expert opinion evidence and by failing to familiarize himself with relevant legal practices.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the defendants, fixing the physicians' costs at $365,095.67 and the hospital's costs at $75,019.11.

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.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Corthorn J. dated May 10, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding physicians and hospital.

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.

The plaintiffs brought an action against a child welfare agency following the suicide of a teenager in its care.

After the expiry of the two-year limitation period under the Trustee Act, the plaintiffs sought to add a doctor and a hospital as defendants, arguing that the late discovery of a clinical note constituted special circumstances or fraudulent concealment.

The moving parties brought summary judgment motions to dismiss the action against them as statute-barred.

The court granted the motions, finding no evidence of fraudulent concealment and concluding that the plaintiffs' delay in pursuing the action and seeking to add the parties did not justify extending the limitation period.

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.

The defendant hospital requested the summary dismissal of the plaintiff's action under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing it was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The plaintiff, who had a previous action stayed, alleged breaches of privacy regarding his medical chart.

The court found that while the pleading might have deficiencies or be partially duplicative of the stayed action, it was not so clearly unmeritorious as to warrant summary dismissal.

The defendant's request was dismissed without costs.

The plaintiff brought an action against 28 physicians, a hospital, and the provincial and federal governments, alleging negligence and misrepresentation leading to a delayed diagnosis of Lyme disease.

The defendants brought motions to strike the statement of claim.

The court struck the claims against the provincial and federal governments without leave to amend, finding the plaintiff failed to provide statutory notice to Ontario and failed to plead material facts establishing a duty of care by the governments.

The court also struck several paragraphs of the claim against the physicians and hospital, but granted the plaintiff leave to amend to properly plead material facts supporting his claims in negligence, vicarious liability, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The appellant, an involuntary psychiatric patient diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming her attending physicians' finding that she was incapable of managing her property.

The appellant argued the assessment was flawed and that her limited income negated the need for property management.

The Superior Court of Justice applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Board's decision.

The court found that the appellant's delusional beliefs regarding property ownership and marriage prevented her from understanding information relevant to her housing and discharge planning, thereby satisfying the test for incapacity.