Madeline Hall

The self-represented plaintiff sued a women's shelter, the city's public health department, and an infectious disease specialist, alleging she contracted active tuberculosis from another shelter resident and was subsequently misdiagnosed and mistreated.

The defendants moved for summary judgment.

The court granted the motions and dismissed the action, finding the plaintiff failed to adduce any expert medical evidence to support her claims of medical malpractice or to prove she was exposed to an infectious person.

Costs were awarded to the defendants on a partial indemnity basis.

The moving lawyer defendants sought to strike a self-represented plaintiff’s expansive civil action alleging conspiracy, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, Charter breaches, defamation, and other torts arising from criminal proceedings and child protection litigation.

The court held that the statement of claim lacked material facts linking the lawyer defendants to the alleged misconduct and improperly attempted to relitigate criminal convictions and child protection determinations.

Many claims were also barred by the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court found the pleadings vague, speculative, and abusive, failing to establish recognized causes of action or the elements of torts such as conspiracy, malicious prosecution, defamation, or abuse of public office.

The action against the four lawyer defendants was struck or dismissed without leave to amend.

A physician brought a motion under Rule 21.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the plaintiff’s claims alleging negligent medical treatment of the plaintiff’s child, conspiracy, defamation, abuse of public office, and Charter breaches.

The court held that the pleadings failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action, lacked necessary material facts, and improperly advanced speculative allegations against numerous defendants.

The court further found no duty of care owed by the physician to the plaintiff personally, as the treatment was provided to the child and no therapeutic relationship with the plaintiff was pleaded.

Several asserted causes of action were legally untenable or inadequately pleaded, and the claims were also barred by the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The claims against the physician were struck without leave to amend.