In a medical negligence action arising from alleged negligent chiropractic treatment, the plaintiffs moved to strike portions of the statement of defence referring to a professional complaint made to the College of Chiropractors, sought a “lesser and better” affidavit of documents excluding the complaint materials, and requested that the defendant be examined for discovery in Toronto.
The court interpreted s. 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 as barring the admissibility of documents prepared for regulatory proceedings but not the pleading of facts such as the timing of a complaint.
The court held that the defence’s reference to the timing of the plaintiff’s complaint did not plead a prohibited “report, document or thing” and could remain.
The court further declined to order a revised affidavit of documents, holding that admissibility issues and use of prior inconsistent statements should be determined by the trial judge.
The request to compel discovery in Toronto was also dismissed, with the court criticizing the motion as strategic and improper.
