Court File and Parties
Court File No.: CV-23-00711193-0000 Date: 2024-05-07 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
Re: GRANVILLE DE CARIES, Plaintiff And: STATEFARM/CERTAS HOME FINANCIAL AND AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY AND DR, DAVID HOLT, DR. RAYMOND ZATZMAN, LERNERS LLP, ADAM PATENAUDE, PAULA J. THOMAS, AND WITHROW AND ASSOCIATES, Defendants
Before: Akazaki J.
Counsel: Bonnie Greenaway, for Dr. David Holt and Dr. Raymond Zatzman Philippa G. Samworth, for State Farm, Paula Thomas, and Withrow & Associates
Heard: May 7, 2024
Endorsement
[1] This was a rule 2.1 review which led to my direction that the plaintiff provide written submissions pursuant to subrule 2.1.01(3). That direction now appears at 2024 ONSC 2242. I do not require any submissions from the defendants. For the reasons that follow, the action is dismissed as against all defendants except for Dr. Holt and Dr. Zatzman.
[2] The plaintiff’s response consisted of the following arguments:
- The insurers governed the care provided by the doctors. There is a “qualifying holistic review doctrine” that “associates the overall coexistence and conduct … multiple branches of correctional services and identifying its cryptic connection.”
- A corporation has the capacity to act as a natural person and is therefore subject to “Natural Law.” The latter includes procedural law, civil law, and the law of nations.
- The insurers were negligent in authorizing payment for the suspect medication.
- The lawyers have professional obligations to the justice system. This is a duty of honest performance, a doctrine of contract law and not tort law.
- The Federal Court of Appeal has exclusive jurisdiction over the entirety of the claim.
- The lawyers made representations amounting to negligence and breach of contract to both the plaintiff and the defendants.
[3] The submissions did not directly address the issue I raised regarding the Superior Court’s lack of jurisdiction to deal with his claim against the insurers in respect of the SABS benefits. The assertion that the Federal Court of Appeal has exclusive jurisdiction – although the wrong adjudicative body – appears to concede that the Superior Court of Ontario has no jurisdiction. Any issue arising from the funding of medications prescribed in accordance with a treatment plan are the subject of the Licence Appeal Tribunal’s exclusive jurisdiction: Yang v. Co-operators General Insurance Company, 2022 ONCA 178, at paras. 4-5. (That would include any involvement by the defendant doctors in their role as SABS assessors, as opposed to prescribing or treating doctors.)
[4] The submission that the insurers and doctors’ lawyers owed a duty at large to the justice system and, by dint of that, a duty of care to the plaintiff, is a “frivolous” claim in the sense that there is no serious issue warranting a trial. The plaintiff cited the professional obligations mentioned in Groia v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2018 SCC 27, [2018] 1 SCR 772. The duty of civility, as well as other such duties under Law Society of Ontario rules, could result in regulatory issues but do not give rise to a civil claim for damages in before a superior court. As I stated in my earlier decision, it is important that the courts guard against vexatious claims against lawyers of adversaries. The elimination of such claims hanging over their heads, even if no reasonable person could take them seriously, is important to the administration of justice.
[5] The action is therefore dismissed as against all defendants except for Dr. Holt and Dr. Zatzman. I do not award costs in favour of or against any party.
[6] The plaintiff’s approval of the formal order under rule 59.03 is hereby dispensed with.
Date: May 7, 2024 Akazaki J.