Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2018-03-16 Docket: C64158

Panel: Hoy A.C.J.O., Juriansz and Miller JJ.A.

Between

Jennifer Umlauf Plaintiff/Responding Party (Appellant)

and

Halton Healthcare Services, Joseph Brant Hospital, Mississauga Halton Local Health Integration Network, and The Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care Defendants/Moving Parties (Respondents)

Counsel

Jennifer Umlauf, acting in person

Nikita Rathwell, for the respondents

Heard and released orally: March 14, 2018

On appeal from: the judgment of Justice C.D. Braid of the Superior Court of Justice, dated July 10, 2017.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The appellant appeals from the motion judge's decision striking her claim and dismissing her action against the respondents, The Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and Mississauga-Halton Local Health Integration Network.

[2] In her oral submissions, the appellant reviewed in detail events that allegedly occurred after being admitted as a patient at Joseph Brant Hospital and subsequently as an involuntary patient at Halton Healthcare and what she describes as the ensuing impact on her life. In her action, she alleged that she experienced psychological harassment and criminal negligence that resulted in bodily harm.

[3] The Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care is not a suable entity. The motion judge dealt with the matter as if the appellant had properly named Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario (the "Crown") as the defendant, and we proceed on the same basis.

[4] While the motion judge set out several reasons why the appellant's action could not proceed against the Crown, we need address only one since it is dispositive. The motion judge found the appellant did not comply with s. 7(1) of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.27 and therefore the claim against the Crown was a nullity. There is no basis to interfere with this conclusion.

[5] Nor is there any basis to interfere with the motion judge's conclusion that the appellant's claims against the Mississauga-Halton Local Health Integration Network are precluded by s. 35.1 of the Local Health System Integration Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 4, as her statement of claim made no allegation of bad faith.

[6] Further, the motion judge was correct in striking the appellant's claim for a remedy under the Charter. The appellant did not plead material facts that would support an infringement of any of her Charter rights. Her claim for a Charter remedy had no prospect of success.

[7] Finally, we see no basis to interfere with the costs fixed by the motion judge. The appeal is dismissed. The respondents do not seek costs.

"Alexandra Hoy A.C.J.O."

"R.G. Juriansz J.A."

"B.W. Miller J.A."