Court of Appeal for Ontario

CITATION: Kurdina v. Dief, 2010 ONCA 288

DATE: 20100419

DOCKET: C51345 & C51346

BEFORE: Sharpe, Cronk and MacFarland JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Galina Kurdina

Plaintiff (Appellant)

and

Doctor Hanna Dief and Doctor David Gratzer

Defendants (Respondents)

COUNSEL:

Galina Kurdina in person

Alexi Wood, for the defendant (respondent)

Heard & released orally: April 13, 2010

On appeal from the judgment of Justice P. Perell of the Superior Court of Justice dated November 4, 2009.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellant appeals two summary judgments dismissing her claims against two psychiatrists for negligence. In our view, both appeals must be dismissed.

[2] The motion judges correctly identified the issue as being whether there was a triable issue as to the alleged negligence of the defendant psychiatrists. It is well established that to establish a breach of the standard of care to support a claim for medical negligence, a plaintiff is required to lead expert evidence of a physician practising in the same field as the defendant attesting to the defendant’s negligence.

[3] The respondents provided the evidence of Dr. Sugar, a qualified expert witness who swore that the respondents had not fallen below the standard of care in their treatment of the appellant. To avoid summary judgment, the appellant was required to adduce some expert opinion evidence from a qualified psychiatrist supporting her claim that the care she received fell below the applicable standard of care.

[4] None of the deponents the appellant offered were psychiatrists qualified to practise in Ontario or qualified to provide expert evidence on the applicable standard of care in Ontario. Without any evidence that the respondents had fallen below the standard of care that applies to them, the appellant’s claim had no hope of success. Both actions were properly dismissed by way of summary judgment.

[5] The material proffered as fresh evidence relates to the theories of practices of certain people who are not psychiatrists and even if admitted would not affect the outcome of these appeals.

[6] Finally, we see no merit in the application for leave to appeal costs.

[7] According, the appeals are dismissed.

“Robert J. Sharpe J.A.”

“E.A. Cronk J.A.”

“J. MacFarland J.A.”