Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NOS.: CV-19-623176 and CV-19-623762

DATE: 2020-12-31

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

RE: MARIE GRAFF, Plaintiff CV-19-623176

AND:

DR. BEVERLY ANNE JACKSON AND TADDLE CREEK FAMILY HEALTH TEAM, Defendants

AND BETWEEN:

MARIE GRAFF, Plaintiff CV-19-623762

AND:

ANDREW PORTER, LENCZNER SLAGHT, DR. PAULA WILLIAMS AND DR. PAULA B. WILLIAMS MEDICINE PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, Defendants

BEFORE: Schabas J.

COUNSEL: Marie Graff, plaintiff, in person Andrew Porter for the defendant, Dr. Beverly Anne Jackson, CV-19-623176 Gavin J. Tighe and Scott K. Gfeller for the defendants, Andrew Porter and Lenczner Slaght, CV-19-623762 Sam Rogers and Sarit E. Batner for the defendants, Dr. Paula Williams and Dr. Paula B. WILLIAMS MEDICINE PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, CV-19-623762

HEARD: In writing

Endorsement

[1] The court has been asked to dismiss these actions pursuant to Rule 2.1.01 as being frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process.

[2] I sought submissions from the plaintiff which I have received and have reviewed. I find that the actions should be dismissed.

[3] Both actions involve allegations arising from the disclosure of medical information in the course of litigation involving the plaintiff arising from a motor vehicle accident.

[4] The issue of the disclosure of the information was pleaded by the plaintiff in another lawsuit which included Dr. Paula B. Williams and Dr. Paula B. Williams Medicine Professional Corporation as defendants, who are also defendants in the second of the actions before me (CV-19-623762). The other action was dismissed on a summary judgment motion by Favreau J. on December 13, 2017. In the course of that judgment, reported as Graff v. Network North Reporting and Mediation, 2017 ONSC 7451, [2017] O.J. No. 6513, Favreau J. addressed the issue raised in the pleadings before me as follows, at para. 97:

I also do not see any merit to Ms. Graff's claim that Dr. Williams improperly disclosed her report to Ms. Graff's family doctor. I accept Dr. Williams' evidence that Ms. Graff provided her consent to the disclosure. While Ms. Graff argued on the motion that the consent was a forged document, she had no expert evidence in support of this contention. In addition, there is absolutely no evidence of any motivation Dr. Williams may have had for sending the report without Ms. Graff's consent. In any event, there is no evidence of damage caused by this allegation. It appears that Ms. Graff's doctor had already received a copy of the report from Kahler and Ms. Graff has not asserted any evidence of damage caused by the disclosure.

[5] Ms. Graff’s family doctor, referred to above, is Dr. Beverley Anne Jackson, the defendant in the first action before me (CV-19-623176). I have no information about the second defendant, simply called “Taddle Creek”, other than the claim is addressed to the Taddle Creek Family Health Team at the same address as Dr. Jackson.

[6] Although Ms. Graff sought to appeal the decision of Favreau J., the appeal was administratively dismissed after it was not advanced for two years, and a panel of the Court of Appeal dismissed Ms. Graff’s motion to set aside the administrative dismissal: Graff v Network North Reporting and Mediation, 2020 ONCA 319.

[7] The pleadings in these two matters are simply attempts to relitigate the issue raised and dismissed by Justice Favreau. Although Ms. Graff now sues Dr. Jackson and Taddle Creek, as well as Dr. Williams’ lawyers, Andrew Porter and Lenczner Slaght, the claim is based on the allegation that Ms. Graff’s consent was forged, which was conclusively dealt with by Favreau J. Stating that there was some kind of conspiracy to forge the document does not get around the problem that Ms. Graff has previously alleged the consent was forged and this Court has conclusively dismissed that contention. Relitigating this issue would amount to an improper collateral attack on Justice Favreau’s order. The matter is also res judicata as between Ms. Graff and Dr. Williams and her corporation.

[8] Furthermore, the pleadings do not state what damage, if any, the disclosure of the medical report caused, a point also made by Favreau J. Consequently, the claim does not, in any event, plead a reasonable cause of action.

[9] Accordingly, these actions are dismissed as an abuse of process.

Paul B. Schabas J.

Date: December 31, 2020