Émilie Roy

The self-represented moving party sought an extension of time to appeal a summary judgment dismissing his medical malpractice action against numerous doctors and a hospital for alleged failure to diagnose and treat Lyme disease.

The motion judge had previously dismissed the action due to the plaintiff's failure to provide admissible expert evidence on standard of care and causation, and for procedural non-compliance regarding document filing.

The Court of Appeal denied the extension, finding that despite the moving party's bona fide intention to appeal and the relatively short delay, the proposed appeal lacked arguable merit, primarily due to the absence of admissible expert evidence to support the medical negligence claims and the moving party's failure to adhere to procedural rules.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's medical malpractice action on summary judgment, the successful defendant physicians and hospital sought their costs on a substantial indemnity scale.

The plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, had alleged a delayed diagnosis of Lyme disease against 35 physicians and the hospital.

The court found that the plaintiff acted unreasonably by ignoring repeated guidance regarding the necessity of expert opinion evidence and by failing to familiarize himself with relevant legal practices.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the defendants, fixing the physicians' costs at $365,095.67 and the hospital's costs at $75,019.11.

The plaintiff, Cary Beazley, sued 27 physicians and Queensway Carleton Hospital for medical malpractice, alleging delayed diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease.

Three motions for summary judgment were heard: one by the defendant physicians, one by the Hospital, and a cross-motion by the plaintiff seeking a finding of liability in his favour.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims against all defendants, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide admissible expert evidence to support his claims in negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The court also denied the plaintiff's request to file a second expert affidavit and to be qualified as an expert.

This is an interim ruling on the admissibility of documentary evidence for motions for summary judgment in a medical negligence action.

The self-represented plaintiff, Cary Beazley, alleged delayed diagnosis of Lyme disease against numerous physicians and a hospital.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, and the plaintiff cross-moved for partial summary judgment.

The court addressed the admissibility of 83 documents relied upon by the plaintiff, many of which were incomplete, unsworn, or linked via hyperlinks.

The court emphasized that while procedural fairness is extended to self-represented litigants, fundamental evidentiary rules, such as the requirement for hard copies, proper authentication, and logical probative value, must still be met.

Many of the plaintiff's documents were excluded for failing to meet these criteria, including a video recording of testimony due to lack of authentication and internet information for lack of reliability.

This interim ruling addresses the plaintiff's request to be qualified as an expert witness in the areas of Lyme disease diagnosis and treatment, in the context of summary judgment motions.

The plaintiff, who is self-represented and a party to the action, sought to rely on his self-prepared 'Beazley Reports' as expert evidence.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's request, finding that as a party with a direct financial interest and an advocate, he was unable or unwilling to provide fair, objective, and non-partisan opinion evidence, which is a threshold requirement for expert qualification.

The court also found that the 'Beazley Reports' themselves did not constitute expert reports.

The plaintiff brought an action against 28 physicians, a hospital, and the provincial and federal governments, alleging negligence and misrepresentation leading to a delayed diagnosis of Lyme disease.

The defendants brought motions to strike the statement of claim.

The court struck the claims against the provincial and federal governments without leave to amend, finding the plaintiff failed to provide statutory notice to Ontario and failed to plead material facts establishing a duty of care by the governments.

The court also struck several paragraphs of the claim against the physicians and hospital, but granted the plaintiff leave to amend to properly plead material facts supporting his claims in negligence, vicarious liability, and breach of fiduciary duty.