Landan E. Peleikis

A physician with privileges at a hospital brought an action against the hospital alleging defamation, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and intentional infliction of mental suffering.

The claims arose from the hospital's investigation of a complaint made to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario alleging the physician expedited a patient's death.

The hospital investigated the complaint confidentially without notifying the physician and concluded the complaint was without foundation.

The physician was not notified until after the investigation concluded.

The hospital brought a Rule 21 motion to strike the pleadings and the physician brought a motion to compel production of investigation documents.

The court granted the hospital's motion in part, striking the contract claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action, but dismissed the motion as to other claims.

The court granted the physician's production motion in part, ordering disclosure of documents relating to the scope and manner of investigation while protecting the identity of the complainant nurse and patient information.

The appellant, John Dunford, appealed the dismissal of his claim for damages against the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board and Hamilton Health Sciences Corporation.

Dunford alleged that Dr. James E. Anderson, who was involved with the Cool School program, sexually abused him and that the hospital was vicariously liable.

The trial judge found that Dr. Anderson committed the tort of sexual battery but concluded the hospital was not vicariously liable due to insufficient closeness in the relationship.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s findings, holding that the correct legal test was applied and that the policy rationales for vicarious liability were properly considered.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

This mid-trial ruling addresses two issues in a medical negligence jury trial: (1) the proper form of the jury questions on causation, and (2) whether the jury should be required to provide reasons or particulars for their verdict on causation.

The court reviews the relevant case law and determines that the "but for" test should be used in the jury questions on causation, rather than the "caused or contributed to" language, given the facts of the case.

The court also declines to require the jury to provide reasons or particulars for their finding on causation, citing the risk of confusion and the lack of necessity in the circumstances.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal by S.D.M.O. Industries (Kohler-SDMO) and Kohler Co., who sought to stay proceedings on the basis of lack of jurisdiction or a forum selection clause favoring a French court.

The court held that Ontario had jurisdiction, the forum selection clause was not proven to be valid or applicable, and the motion judge made no reviewable error.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.