Meghan A. Lindo

The Superior Court of Justice, on its own initiative under Rule 2.1.01, reviewed the plaintiff's action and related motions for dismissal as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The action, concerning an involuntary hospitalization in 2010 and subsequent requests for inquiry in 2015, was found to be outside the applicable limitation period and lacking a discernable cause of action.

The plaintiff's submissions were deemed contemptuous and unhelpful.

The court dismissed the action and noted that two of the plaintiff's motions seeking orders compelling government investigations were also frivolous.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his medical malpractice action.

The motion judge dismissed the action because the appellant failed to provide an expert report establishing causation or a breach of the standard of care, despite court-ordered timetables.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding no denial of procedural fairness and confirming that the appellant failed to meet his obligation to put his best foot forward by providing evidence on the essential elements of his claim.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

An 11-year-old First Nations child from Six Nations of the Grand River was diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia with a 90-95% cure rate with chemotherapy.

The child's mother withdrew consent for chemotherapy to pursue traditional medicine consistent with their longhouse beliefs.

The hospital applied under section 40(4) of the Child and Family Services Act seeking a protection order.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the mother's decision to pursue traditional medicine constituted an exercise of an aboriginal right protected under section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The court held that the child could not be found in need of protection when the substitute decision-maker exercised a constitutionally protected right.