François Guay-Racine

The court considered two motions for summary judgment in a civil action brought by William Stoddart, a former inmate, against Dr. Diana Silver Wyatt and various Crown defendants.

Stoddart alleged assault and professional negligence against Dr. Wyatt, and negligence, assault, and breach of Charter rights against the Crown defendants, arising from the discontinuation of his prescription for gabapentin following a change in the Correctional Service of Canada’s drug formulary.

The court found that the only evidence on the standard of care was from the defendants, and Stoddart failed to provide any expert evidence in support of his claims.

The court held that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and granted summary judgment, dismissing all of Stoddart’s claims.

This costs endorsement follows the dismissal of a medical malpractice action brought by Frank Papineau against Dr. Pablo Romero-Sierra and Dr. Jonny Brisebois.

The court awards the defendants substantial indemnity costs of $957,893 after a seven-week trial, finding the plaintiff's claim was without foundation and that he made unsubstantiated allegations of dishonesty against Dr. Romero-Sierra.

The court rejects arguments that the action was public interest litigation or that costs should be denied due to the plaintiff's financial circumstances, emphasizing the importance of deterring unmeritorious litigation and sanctioning improper conduct.

The plaintiff sued two physicians for medical malpractice, alleging they negligently failed to diagnose and treat him for Lyme disease following a suspected tick bite in April 2010.

The emergency room physician diagnosed cellulitis and prescribed antibiotics, while the family physician later treated the plaintiff for various ongoing symptoms but did not diagnose Lyme disease.

The court found that neither physician breached the standard of care.

Furthermore, the court concluded the plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he was bitten by a tick or that he actually contracted Lyme disease.

The action was dismissed.

The defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss a medical negligence claim, arguing it was brought outside the two-year limitation period.

The plaintiff contended that the claim was not discovered until an expert medical opinion was obtained.

The court found that the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the material facts supporting a plausible inference of liability as early as mid-February 2013, and no later than October 2013, well before the claim was issued in August 2017.

The expert opinion merely addressed the merits, not the discoverability.

The motion was granted, and the claims were dismissed.

The plaintiff, Deirdre Moore, brought an action in Ontario against Dr. Paule Kemgni (a Quebec-based psychiatrist) and Jonathan Kiska (an Ontario resident).

Dr. Kemgni moved to stay the action against her, arguing that Ontario lacked jurisdiction or was not the proper forum.

The court applied the "real and substantial connection" test from Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda.

It found that none of the presumptive connecting factors applied to Dr. Kemgni, as her professional activities and the alleged tortious conduct occurred entirely in Quebec, and the damages claimed from her were separate from those claimed against the Ontario-resident co-defendant.

The court distinguished Cesario v. Gondek, noting that the plaintiff's pleadings did not allege joint tortfeasors or inseparable damages.

Consequently, Ontario was found to lack jurisdiction over the action against Dr. Kemgni, and the action against her was stayed.

The court also briefly addressed forum non conveniens, concluding that Quebec would be the more appropriate forum due to the location of the defendant, her practice, applicable law, and witnesses.

The defendant hospital and nurses brought a motion for summary judgment and to dismiss the plaintiff's medical malpractice action.

The court found that the moving parties failed to meet their evidentiary burden for summary judgment because they did not file expert evidence establishing they met the standard of care.

However, the court dismissed the action under Rule 15.04 because the plaintiff failed to appoint a new lawyer or file a notice of intention to act in person for over 18 months after his former lawyer was removed from the record.

The defendant dentists and physicians brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's dental and medical malpractice action.

The plaintiff alleged that he suffered a mandibular fracture following a wisdom tooth extraction and that the defendants failed to properly diagnose the injury.

The plaintiff's lawyer was previously removed from the record, and the plaintiff failed to appoint a new lawyer or serve notice of self-representation.

The defendants filed expert reports opining that they met the standard of care.

The plaintiff failed to respond with any expert evidence.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial without expert evidence from the plaintiff.

The applicant, a francophone physician, sought judicial review of an interim decision by the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The Committee had denied his request for a disciplinary hearing before a bilingual panel, concluding that the use of interpreters was sufficient and constituted a reasonable limit under the Health Professions Procedural Code.

The Divisional Court granted the application, holding that the standard of correctness applied to the interpretation of language rights.

The Court found that the applicant has a presumptive right to a bilingual panel under section 86(1) of the Code.

The Court further held that the Committee's conclusion that interpreters were a reasonable limit under section 86(4) was unreasonable because it failed to consider the specific circumstances of the case.

The matter of reasonable limits was remitted to the Committee.

The proposed interveners brought a motion for leave to intervene as amicus curiae in a judicial review application.

The underlying application concerns the applicant's right to a disciplinary hearing in French before the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The court granted the motion, finding that the interveners could make a useful contribution regarding the application of the French Language Services Act, and that any prejudice to the respondent could be mitigated by allowing a responding factum.