3 total
Medical negligence claim dismissed for failure to prove breach and causation.
Medical negligence trial arising from an emergency department assessment of a young adult who was discharged with a viral illness diagnosis, returned the next day in respiratory distress, and died from bacterial pneumonia complications.
The plaintiffs alleged the emergency physicians breached the standard of care by failing to investigate pneumonia with chest X-ray and bloodwork and that earlier diagnosis would have prevented death.
The court held the patient’s presentation on the first attendance was consistent with viral illness, did not objectively indicate pneumonia, and did not require those investigations.
Apart from a technical charting omission regarding the respiratory examination, no breach was established, and the plaintiffs failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that earlier testing or treatment would have changed the outcome.
The Court of Appeal upheld a discretionary decision extending a limitation period to add defendants due to special circumstances and lack of prejudice.
The appellants challenged a motion judge's discretionary decision to extend the limitation period under section 38(3) of the Trustee Act and permit the respondents to add the appellants as named defendants in a medical malpractice action.
The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the motion judge's decision, which was based on a finding of special circumstances.
Although there was a lengthy unexplained delay, the motion judge found it was outweighed by other factors, and there was no actual prejudice.
The appeal was dismissed.
Partial summary judgment motion dismissed as it was brought too close to trial and risked duplicative proceedings.
The defendants in a medical malpractice action brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim under the Family Law Act, arguing she did not meet the definition of a spouse.
The court dismissed the motion, finding it was brought too close to the scheduled trial date contrary to prior instructions.
Applying the principles from Hryniak, the court held that granting partial summary judgment would risk duplicative proceedings and was not in the interest of justice, as the spousal status issue could be efficiently determined at trial.
