Monica Tessier

The appellant, Phyllis Johnson, appealed a motion judge's order granting summary judgment and dismissing her dental malpractice action.

The appellant sought to adduce fresh expert evidence on appeal.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence, finding that it satisfied the Palmer test.

The court concluded that with this new evidence, the motion judge would have adjourned the summary judgment motion to allow the appellant to cure deficiencies in the expert report.

The appeal was allowed, and the dismissal of the action was set aside.

Following a successful motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim, the defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that while the self-represented plaintiff made unfounded allegations, his conduct did not rise to the level of reprehensible or scandalous behaviour required for an elevated costs award.

The court awarded the defendants their costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendants moved to strike the self-represented plaintiff's statement of claim under Rules 21.01(1)(b) and 25.11.

The claim arose from the College's investigation and disposition of the plaintiff's complaint against a physician.

The court found the statement of claim was devoid of material facts and failed to articulate any recognized cause of action.

Furthermore, section 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act rendered the allegations incapable of proof, and section 38 provided statutory immunity to the College.

The statement of claim was struck without leave to amend.

The defendants sought to re-schedule a motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice action.

The plaintiffs resisted, arguing for further discovery, mandatory mediation, and a right to a trial in open court, and also raised a potential conflict of interest concerning the defendants' counsel.

The court granted the re-scheduling, finding that the plaintiffs had ample time over five years to pursue procedural rights and obtain expert evidence, which was still lacking.

The court emphasized that there is no absolute right to a civil trial, particularly when expert evidence is essential but absent in a medical malpractice claim.

Concerns regarding mediation and counsel disqualification were dismissed as untimely and tactical.

The plaintiff brought a dental malpractice claim alleging improper tooth extraction.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing no genuine issue for trial due to the plaintiff's failure to produce an expert report on standard of care and causation.

The court granted summary judgment, dismissing the action, as the plaintiff, despite being self-represented and having multiple previous counsels, failed to provide expert evidence to counter the defendants' expert report which affirmed the standard of care was met.

The court found the case was not one of the 'clearest of cases' where expert evidence could be dispensed with.