Kathryn Elizabeth Ball

The appellant, mother of a man who killed his father, appealed a motion judge's order striking her negligence claim against two psychiatrists who treated her son.

The motion judge had struck the claim alleging negligence in treatment, finding no established duty of care and that imposing such a duty would create an impossible conflict with the duty owed to the patient.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that while the duty of care was not within an established category, the conflict analysis was speculative and should be determined on a proper evidentiary record rather than at the pleadings stage.

The court distinguished the case from precedents involving child protection and medical treatment of pregnant women, emphasizing that the patient and his parents shared a common interest in appropriate treatment.

The plaintiff initiated a negligence action against two psychiatrists following a tragic incident where their son killed their spouse.

The defendants sought to strike the claim.

The court determined that a duty of care related to the negligent treatment of the patient by the psychiatrists could not be established due to inherent conflicts of interest between the patient's best interests and those of third parties.

However, the court found that a claim based on a duty to warn third parties of a patient's danger was novel but arguable, particularly in light of the public safety exception to confidentiality.

Despite this, the duty to warn claim was struck with leave to re-plead, as it lacked sufficient factual particularity to meet the criteria for establishing such a duty.

The plaintiffs brought eight proposed class actions against various long-term care (LTC) home owners and operators in Ontario, alleging systemic negligence and gross negligence in their response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court considered whether the claims met the certification criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, particularly in light of the statutory immunity provided by the Supporting Ontario's Recovery Act (SORA).

The court certified six of the actions against the main corporate groups, finding that the pleadings disclosed a viable cause of action in gross negligence and that a class action was the preferable procedure.

However, the court dismissed the certification motions against independently owned homes and municipalities due to the lack of a collective enterprise and missing representative plaintiffs.