3 total
Statement of claim dismissed as frivolous and vexatious under Rule 2.1.01 for failing to disclose a cause of action.
The defendant College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario requested the dismissal of the plaintiff's statement of claim under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The plaintiff, who was self-represented, filed a handwritten claim alleging her child was misdiagnosed, but failed to disclose a cause of action, state any requested relief, or establish a connection to the defendant.
The court found the claim to be frivolous, vexatious, and devoid of merit, noting curious formatting and irrelevant attachments.
The action was dismissed.
Statement of claim stayed pending frivolous and vexatious determination under Rule 2.1.
The registrar referred a motion to the court pursuant to rule 2.1.01(7) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, following a written request by counsel for the defendant, a professional regulatory body.
On reviewing the plaintiff's statement of claim, the court found it appeared to be frivolous and vexatious.
The court directed the registrar to issue a Form 2.1A notice to the self-represented plaintiff, stayed the proceeding pending the outcome of the written hearing under rule 2.1, and limited further filings to the plaintiff's written submissions.
The court remained seized of the matter.
The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial after finding the trial judge provided insufficient reasons by failing to analyze contradictory expert evidence and the underlying breach of contract claim regarding a medical certification exam.
International medical graduates appealed the dismissal of their breach of contract action against the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada.
The appellants sought a declaration that they had passed the Royal College's 2020 qualifying psychiatry exam and were entitled to certification for independent practice.
The trial judge dismissed the action, finding that the Royal College's 6.5% downward adjustment of exam scores was psychometrically justified.
The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's reasons were insufficient because she failed to meaningfully engage with contradictory expert evidence, did not address the breach of contract claim, and did not analyze whether the parties had entered into an enforceable contract or whether the Royal College breached its duty of good faith performance.
The appeal was granted and a new trial was ordered.
