John J. Morris

The appellants, three physicians who practiced in the respondent hospital's urgent care centre, appealed the dismissal of their wrongful dismissal action.

The trial judge dismissed the claim on the ground that it was barred by section 44(5) of the Public Hospitals Act, which immunizes hospitals from liability for acts done in good faith when a hospital board decides to cease providing a service.

The appellants argued that section 44(5) should not apply based on legislative history and the characterization of their status as dependent contractors.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that section 44(5) is clear and all-encompassing, barring all proceedings for damages arising from a hospital's decision to cease providing a service, regardless of the legal characterization of the terminated physicians' status.

The defendant hospital requested that the plaintiff's action be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The self-represented plaintiff's hand-written statement of claim alleged mistreatment and abuse by the defendants but failed to set out facts giving rise to a cause of action.

The court found the pleading to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and directed the Registrar to issue a notice to the plaintiff that the court is considering dismissing the action, while staying the proceeding in the interim.