The appellant physician appealed an interlocutory order granting the plaintiff leave to amend his Statement of Claim to add a novel claim in negligence against her.
The plaintiff alleged the physician owed him a duty of care when she provided psychiatric advice to a patient regarding the plaintiff, an unidentified third party.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding it plain and obvious that no prima facie duty of care existed due to a lack of proximity, and that residual policy considerations, including conflicting duties and the chilling effect on physicians, negated any such duty.
