COURT FILE NO.: 17-74859 DATE: 2022/08/30 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

CARY BEAZLEY Plaintiff – and – DR. MARY JOHNSTON, DR. JAMES GILL, DR. PRAVIN SHUKLE, DR KALPESH RAICHURA, DR. ROBERT GAUVREAU, DR. LAWRENCE NORMAN , DR. MARIKO HASHIMOTO, DR MARK TRECARTEN, DR BASKAR GOPALAN, DR. NATALIE KESES, DR DEAN HOLDEN , DR JAMES WARD, DR ELLEN HENRY , DR GUY HEBERT, DR MARTIN GREEN, DR. PABLO NERY , DR. ADAM NICHOLSON, DR ADAM COHN, DR DONALD HARRIS, DR KUAN CHIN CHEN , DR. ELIZABETH SCOTT, DR GORDON KEE , DR HYMAN RABINOVITCH, DR DANIEL CHUKWU, DR KADAMBI SITARAM , DR KARI SAMPSEL, DR GETNET ASRAT, DR RICHARD MOXON, DR STEPHEN CHOI, DR PABLO NERY, DR. SAMUEL HETZ , DR. JACINDA WONG, DR ROBERT NICHOLS, DR. SUNIL VARGHESE, DR. DAVID DAVIDSON, DR. NINA RAMIC, DR JANE DOE, DR JOHN DOE, THE ONTARIO MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND LONG TERM CARE , QUEENSWAY CARLETON HOSPITAL and PUBLIC HEALTH AGENCY OF CANADA Defendants

Plaintiff is self-represented Andrew McKenna and Justin McCarthy, for the Defendant Physicians Émilie Roy, for the Defendant, Queensway Carleton Hospital HEARD: April 11, 2022 (By Videoconference)

AMENDED INTERIM RULING (No. 2)

(Motions For Summary Judgment)

The text of the original Interim Ruling (No. 2), of May 10, 2022, was amended on August 30, 2022 and a description of the amendment is appended.

Corthorn J.

Introduction

[1] At various times between December 2015 and May 2018, the 27 physicians named as defendants (“the Doctors”) were involved in the care and treatment of the plaintiff, Cary Beazley. Several of the Doctors saw Mr. Beazley at the emergency or another department of the defendant, Queensway Carleton Hospital (“the Hospital”). During the relevant period, Mr. Beazley communicated with one or more other physicians, who held privileges at the Hospital, but who are not named as defendants in the action.

[2] Mr. Beazley’s primary allegation is that as a result of the Doctors’ conduct, there was a delay in him being diagnosed with Lyme disease. Mr. Beazley alleges that the Hospital is vicariously liable for the actions of its employees and medical staff, as those actions relate to the alleged delayed diagnosis.

[3] Mr. Beazley alleges that as a result of the delayed diagnosis of Lyme disease, he has suffered injuries and losses. In the amended amended fresh as amended statement of claim (“the Pleading”), Mr. Beazley claims damages for past and future loss of income in an amount in excess of $200,000. Mr. Beazley also claims an unspecified quantum of damages under each of the following heads of damages: (a) general non-pecuniary damages for pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life and relationships; (b) special damages for out-of-pocket expenses; (c) punitive damages; (d) aggravated damages; and (e) damages for economic losses other than those for past and future loss of income.

[4] The claims against the Doctors are based in negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty. The claims against the Hospital are based in negligence and vicarious liability.

[5] Three motions for summary judgment are before the court (“the Motions”). The Doctors ask the court to dismiss Mr. Beazley’s action against them in its entirety. The Hospital asks the court to dismiss Mr. Beazley’s action against it in its entirety. In response to the defendants’ motions, Mr. Beazley brings a motion for partial summary judgment.

[6] In support of his motion for partial summary judgment and in response to the defendants’ respective motions for summary judgment Mr. Beazley relies on a large number of documents. The materials filed by Mr. Beazley, which include affidavits, facta, and documents, are titled, “Plaintiff Caselines Documents”, Volumes 1 and 2. Those two volumes are comprised of more than 1,360 pages.

[7] Mr. Beazley filed a third volume of documents. That volume consists exclusively of transcripts from Mr. Beazley’s cross-examinations of three of the seven physicians upon whose expert opinion evidence the defendants rely in support of their respective motions for summary judgment.

[8] The only affidavit filed by Mr. Beazley specifically in response to the defendants’ motions for summary judgment is included in Volume 1, Tab 3 of the Plaintiff Caselines Documents. That affidavit is three pages long, includes six paragraphs, and is unsworn. There is no reference in the affidavit to any exhibits attached. Instead, Mr. Beazley refers in the affidavit to an “Exhibits Master List” and the “Expert – Rebuttal – report – Cary Beazley”. [1] Both documents are found elsewhere in the Plaintiff Caselines Documents.

[9] The Exhibits Master List is found at Volume 2, Tab 13. The 82-page list is in chart form. The list identifies 400 separate documents. A description of the documents is provided, with each document assigned a tab number. Although I have not specifically counted the number of website hyperlinks that appear in the list, I am confident that Mr. Beazley included hundreds of such links in the list.

[10] Mr. Beazley did not file hard copies of the 400 documents described or for which website hyperlinks are provided in the Exhibits Master List. Some of the documents referred to in the Exhibits Master List may, however, otherwise be included in the record on the motions.

[11] Included at Volume 1, Tab 8 is an unsworn affidavit from Mr. Beazley upon which he relied in support of a 2020 motion for leave to add Dr. Green as a defendant. That affidavit addresses the procedural history of the action to late January 2020. No exhibits are mentioned in or attached to that affidavit.

[12] At Volume 2, Tabs 8 and 9 are documents which Mr. Beazley refers to as “Exhibit Highlights” (volumes 1 and 2 respectively and approximately 300 pages in total [2] ). These documents include, for example, the following:

• Materials said to be related to a conference held in Dearborn, Michigan in 1994 dealing with Lyme disease;
• An undated extract from a letter sent by serologist, R.H. Notenboom, Ph.D., to then Member of Parliament, the Honourable Evelyn Gigantes;
• Miscellaneous pages from materials prepared by Immunetics Inc. about “C6 Elisa Lyme”, with one of the documents copyrighted in 2006; and
• Three pages from an article published in a 2004 issue of the “Cent Eur J Publ Health”.

[13] The number of documents filed by Mr. Beazley, and the manner in which he presents documents to the court, gives rise to the issue of admissibility of the documents as evidence.

[14] The court’s concerns include procedural fairness to the parties, efficiency in the conduct of the hearing, and the determination of evidentiary issues in a timely manner. It would not be efficient to deal with the admissibility of each document as and when Mr. Beazley seeks to rely on the documents in his submissions. To deal with the admissibility of documents in that manner would be disruptive to Mr. Beazley’s submissions, time-consuming, repetitive, and inefficient.

[15] Nor would it be fair to the parties for the court to receive Mr. Beazley’s submissions and thereafter decide the issue of admissibility of documents in a vacuum – in chambers, post-hearing, and without having received submissions specific to the admissibility of the documents.

[16] As a result, following the conclusion of the submissions on behalf of the Doctors in support of their motion for summary judgment, the court heard submissions with respect to the admissibility as evidence of the documents upon which Mr. Beazley relies. Oral reasons were given on April 13, 2022. This interim ruling constitutes the written reasons that Mr. Beazley and counsel for the defendants were informed would follow.

The Issue

[17] For the purpose of this interim motion, Mr. Beazley was ordered to,

a) review the documents included or referred to in the Plaintiff Caselines Documents, Volumes 1-3; and

b) prepare a chart identifying the documents he asks the court to admit as evidence.

[18] Mr. Beazley and counsel for the defendants were informed that any document not listed in the chart would not be reviewed or considered by the court in any way when determining the Motions.

[19] Mr. Beazley and counsel for the defendants were ordered to collaborate on a single chart for use on this interim motion. The court requested a chart similar to the type of chart required on an undertakings and refusals motion.

[20] In the end, Mr. Beazley and counsel for the defendants provided the court with a chart in which 124 documents are listed (“the Chart”). During his submissions, Mr. Beazley abandoned his request for the admission into evidence of several documents listed in the Chart. As a result of that abandonment, and by the court’s count, a ruling is required for 83 documents (“the Documents”).

[21] In their opposition to the admission into evidence of some of the Documents, the defendants rely on one or more of the five following grounds:

a) A hard copy of the document is not included in Mr. Beazley’s materials;

b) The document cannot be traced or linked in any way to one or more of an affidavit from Mr. Beazley; the report of Dr. Boucher, upon which Mr. Beazley relies for expert opinion evidence; or Mr. Beazley’s cross-examinations of three of the defence expert witnesses;

c) The copy of the document included in Mr. Beazley’s materials is incomplete;

d) The document includes argument or submissions; and

e) For document no. 55 – it is an unauthenticated video.

[22] In the Analysis section which follows, the court relies on those five categories of documents when considering the admissibility of the Documents for which a ruling is required.

Disposition

[23] The court’s rulings with respect to each of the Documents are set out in the chart attached as Schedule ‘A’. The rulings appear in the final column, with the entries therein defined as follows:

A - The document is admitted as evidence;

E - The document is excluded; and

RNR - A ruling is not required because Mr. Beazley abandoned reliance on the document.

[24] Several of the documents listed in the chart are already before the court as evidence. Those documents are found, for example, in the Joint Book of Medical Records or as an exhibit to a supporting affidavit filed on behalf of the Hospital. The documents previously admitted as evidence are: document nos. 3, 6, 15, 32-33, 49, 85, 86, 88-89, and 90. The court did not hear submissions with respect to those documents.

[25] With 11 of 83 of the Documents already addressed, this ruling deals with the remaining 72 documents.

Positions of the Parties

a) The Plaintiff

[26] Mr. Beazley relies on his status as a self-represented litigant in support of his request that the court not apply procedural or evidentiary rules in a manner that would unjustly hinder his legal interests. He submits that many of the Documents are critical because they (a) address the important issue of the sensitivity of the testing for Lyme disease upon which his treating and consulting physicians relied, and/or (b) are central to the issue of the standard of care.

[27] Other documents are said by Mr. Beazley to be important because they relate to care definitions and guidelines for the testing and treatment of Lyme disease.

[28] Mr. Beazley relies on s. 32 of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.23, with respect to the admissibility of well-known public documents. He submits that, in the electronic age, a well-known public document can include a document available on a website for which a party provides the link.

b) The Defendants

[29] The defendants are unified in their response to Mr. Beazley’s motion. The defendants rely on the five grounds listed in para. 21, above, in opposing the request for admission of many of the Documents.

[30] The defendants do not oppose the admission into evidence of several documents for which a ruling is required. The defendants submit that they are, in their lack of opposition, to some degree pushing the limits of the law based on a strict application of evidentiary rules and principles.

[31] The defendants say that they are being flexible in recognition of the fact that Mr. Beazley is self-represented. The defendants acknowledge that, regardless of their lack of opposition with respect to the admission into evidence of certain documents, the court must, in any event, exercise its gatekeeper function.

Self-Represented Litigants

[32] In Pintea v. Johns, 2017 SCC 23, [2017] 1 S.C.R. 470, at para. 4, the Supreme Court of Canada endorsed the Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons (2006). That document was produced by the Canadian Judicial Council (“CJC”).

[33] In the Statement of Principles, the CJC states that, amongst other justice system participants, members of the judiciary “have a responsibility to promote access to the justice system for all persons on an equal basis, regardless of representation.” [3] In fulfilling that responsibility, one of the principles to be applied is that “[s]elf-represented persons should not be denied relief on the basis of a minor or easily rectified deficiency in their case.” [4] The CJC states that judges have a responsibility to “ensure that procedural and evidentiary rules are not used to unjustly hinder the legal interests of self-represented persons.” [5]

[34] Access to justice, procedural fairness, and the importance of the evidentiary issues were considered when determining the admissibility of the Documents.

[35] For example, with respect to procedural fairness, the court directed that Mr. Beazley bring an interim motion addressing the admissibility of documents. By proceeding in that manner, Mr. Beazley had the opportunity to make both primary and reply submissions.

[36] The court could have directed the defendants to bring a motion for an order for the exclusion of all of the documents in the Plaintiff Caselines Documents, Volumes 1 and 2, to which they object. Had the issue of admissibility and/or exclusion of documents been addressed in that manner, Mr. Beazley would have been restricted to responding submissions.

[37] The court set a timetable for the exchange of materials on Mr. Beazley’s interim motion. As another example of procedural fairness to Mr. Beazley, despite the fact that he is the moving party, the court ordered the defendants to deliver their respective two-page, point-form summaries of argument to Mr. Beazley first. With the defendants’ respective written submissions in hand, Mr. Beazley (a) had an understanding of the relevant issues, (b) was well-positioned to address the relevant issues in both his written materials and oral submissions, and (c) had the benefit of the defendants’ submissions as examples of the type of written submissions he could deliver on the interim motion.

[38] Procedural fairness to Mr. Beazley was addressed even before the hearing of the Motions commenced. In January 2022, Roger J. conducted a case conference specific to the Motions. Justice Roger released a detailed endorsement in which he set out the requirements for materials filed on the Motions. Those requirements include that hard copies of all documents upon which a party seeks to rely must be included in the party’s record.

[39] Counsel for the Doctors informed the court that at the January 2022 case conference, Roger J. made a verbal order that reliance on a hyperlink to a website is prohibited for the purpose of documentary evidence on the Motions. Mr. Beazley does not dispute that such a verbal order was made.

[40] In summary, Mr. Beazley received significant guidance from the court with respect to how to present documentary evidence on the Motions.

[41] Last, Mr. Beazley, although self-represented, is not a neophyte in the context of this litigation. The action was commenced in 2017. The Motions are not the first time that the parties have been before the court on a motion.

[42] In 2019, the parties were before the court on motions by one or more of the defendants to strike portions of the fresh as amended statement of claim. The moving party defendants likely did not file affidavits in support of the motions to strike. The materials delivered by the moving party defendants would, however, have given Mr. Beazley examples of the form and substance of court documents.

[43] In addition, Mr. Beazley delivered materials in support of his 2020 motion for leave to add Dr. Green as a defendant.

[44] Mr. Beazley also had the benefit of the example of the 35 or more affidavits filed by the defendants in support of their respective motions. The records from the moving parties include an affidavit from each of the Doctors (all 27 of them), from each of the seven experts upon whose evidence the Doctors rely, and from a representative of the Hospital.

[45] Since at least July 2021, Mr. Beazley has been aware of the defendants’ intention to bring motions for summary judgment. [6] Mr. Beazley has had ample time within which to inform himself and, if necessary, seek advice with respect to the presentation of documentary evidence in the context of a motion.

[46] I turn to the admissibility of the Documents.

Analysis

[47] The defendants applied a four-step process when determining whether to oppose the request for admission of a document as evidence:

Step 1: Ascertain whether there is a complete copy of the document in Mr. Beazley’s materials. If not, identify whether the document can otherwise be linked to the documents referred to by Mr. Beazley in his affidavit at Volume 1, Tab 3, paragraph 5;

Step 2: Determine whether Mr. Beazley relied on the document when cross-examining the Doctors’ expert witnesses. If so, determine whether a complete hard copy of the document is included in the materials filed by Mr. Beazley;

Step 3: Determine whether Dr. Boucher, the expert witness upon whose evidence Mr. Beazley relies, referred to the document in a footnote to his report. If so, determine whether a complete hard copy of the document is included in the materials filed by Mr. Beazley; and

Step 4: Determine whether the document meets the criteria for admission as evidence based on evidentiary principles.

[48] I turn to the five categories of documents.

The Five Categories of Documents

a) A hard copy of the document is not included in the record

[49] Given the procedural fairness afforded to Mr. Beazley, the detailed order made by Roger J., the number of months Mr. Beazley has had to learn how to present documentary evidence to the court, and the opportunity that Mr. Beazley has had to learn from the documents filed on behalf of the defendants, I find that it would be unreasonable and procedurally unfair to the defendants to permit Mr. Beazley to rely on a document for which a hard copy is not included in the record.

[50] Mr. Beazley relies on r. 4.06(3) (b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, in support of the method he chose to present documents to the court on the Motions. Rule 4.06(3) prescribes how exhibits to an affidavit may be presented to the court for admission as evidence:

(3) An exhibit that is referred to in an affidavit shall be marked as such by the person taking the affidavit and where the exhibit,

(a) is referred to as being attached to the affidavit, it shall be attached to and filed with the affidavit;

(b) is referred to as being produced and shown to the deponent, it shall not be attached to the affidavit or filed with it, but shall be left with the registrar for the use of the court, and on the disposition of the matter in respect of which the affidavit was filed, the exhibit shall be returned to the lawyer or party who filed the affidavit, unless the court orders otherwise; and

(c) is a document, a copy shall be served with the affidavit, unless it is impractical to do so.

[51] Rule 4.06(3)(b) is of no assistance to Mr. Beazley. The majority, if not all, of the Documents are not,

• referred to as being attached to an affidavit from either Mr. Beazley or Dr. Boucher (r. 4.06(3)(a)); or
• referred to in an affidavit as being produced and shown to the deponent (r. 4.06(3)(b)).

[52] Rule 4.06(3)(b) provides for the return of an exhibit on completion of the matter, to the lawyer or party who filed the affidavit. The rule is intended to address the preservation of original documents and the return of such documents on completion of the matter.

[53] I find that the Documents do not fall within the scope of r. 4.06(3)(b). I also find that Mr. Beazley’s deviation from the requirements of r. 4.06(3) cannot be overlooked. The deficiency in the record that results from Mr. Beazley’s decision not to include a hard copy of documents is not a minor deficiency.

[54] Nor is that deficiency one that is easily rectified. Rectification of that deficiency would require that Mr. Beazley be granted leave to deliver further affidavit evidence, to which he attaches copies of the documents he seeks to have admitted as evidence. The parties have invested significant time and resources in the Motions to date. Allowing Mr. Beazley to file additional evidence at this stage of the Motions would not be procedurally fair to the defendants, the most expeditious approach to determining the motions, or the least expensive approach to determining the Motions: r. 1.04(1).

[55] For those reasons, the following documents are excluded: nos. 16, 24-25, 35, 71, 73-80, 110, 112, 114-115, and 117-119.

b) The document is not otherwise referred to in the record

[56] Evidence is generally admissible if it is relevant, material, and not otherwise the subject of an exclusionary rule. Evidence that is not logically probative of a fact requiring proof is generally inadmissible: Enns v. Goertzen, 2019 ONSC 4233, at paras. 66-67.

[57] If a document upon which Mr. Beazley relies cannot be linked to an affidavit, to a footnote in or the substance of Dr. Boucher’s report, or to Mr. Beazley’s cross-examinations of the expert witnesses, how are the defendants and how is the court to determine whether the document is material, relevant, and/or logically probative of a fact that requires proof? It is not incumbent on either the defendants or the court to guess as to why a document may be material etc. Absent some connection to an affidavit (from Mr. Beazley or Dr. Boucher), Dr. Boucher’s report, or the cross-examinations of defence experts, there is no basis upon which to determine materiality, etc.

[58] For those reasons, the following documents are not admitted as evidence: nos. 13, 51-53, 56, 58-60, 62-63, 68, 98, 103, and 106. [7]

c) An incomplete copy of the document is included in the record

[59] Mr. Beazley provided several explanations as to why he chose to include incomplete copies of several documents. First, he explained that he was trying to achieve an element of efficiency by saving the court from having to read too much material. I reject that submission.

[60] The sheer volume of materials Mr. Beazley included in the Plaintiff Caselines Documents, Volumes 1 and 2, and the manner in which the documents are presented run counter to efficiency as a factor in the presentation of Mr. Beazley’s court documents. In addition, Mr. Beazley relies on links to websites – creating an even larger number of documents for the court to review than is apparent based on the number of pages in the Plaintiff Caselines Documents.

[61] I am confident that Roger J. considered efficiency as a factor when he made the 2022 case conference order. The materials filed by Mr. Beazley do not comply with that order.

[62] Second, Mr. Beazley relies on s. 32 of the Evidence Act. He submits that the documents for which the copies are incomplete are so public in nature that complete copies of them need not be included. Mr. Beazley cites, as an example of such a document, materials produced by Public Health Ontario. Mr. Beazley did not provide any case authority in support of this submission.

[63] Mr. Beazley submitted that, in this age of electronic documents, websites for well-known institutions from which public documents are available are sufficient for the purpose of the inclusion of a copy of a well-known document in a record before the court. Once again, Mr. Beazley did not provide any case authority in support of his submission.

[64] Mr. Beazley overlooks the evidentiary criteria set out in s. 32 of the Evidence Act. Addressing copies of public books or documents, that section provides as follows:

(1) Where a book or other document is of so public a nature as to be admissible in evidence on its mere production from the proper custody, a copy thereof or extract therefrom is admissible in evidence if it is proved that it is an examined copy or extract, or that it purports to be signed and certified as a true copy or extract by the officer to whose custody the original was entrusted.

(2) Such officer shall furnish the certified copy or extract to any person applying for it at a reasonable time, upon the person paying therefor a sum not exceeding 10 cents for every folio of 100 words.

[65] There is no evidence before the court that the documents upon which Mr. Beazley seeks to rely as public documents are “examined” copies or extracts within the meaning of s. 32. Nor is there any evidence that the copy or extract included in the record or accessed by way of a website link is “signed and certified as a true copy or extract by the officer to whose custody the original was entrusted” within the meaning of s. 32. These evidentiary deficiencies apply to the documents which Mr. Beazley describes as “public”, whether they are before the court by way of a copy in the record or through a link to a website.

[66] Last, I deal more generally with Mr. Beazley’s reliance on website links as a substitute for the inclusion of a copy of a document (whether in whole or in part). At para. 87 of the decision in Sutton v. Sutton, 2017 ONSC 3181, Price J. summarized the criteria for admissibility of internet information. Those criteria require the court to consider,

• whether the information comes from an official website from a well-known organization;
• whether the information is capable of being verified; [and]
• whether the source is disclosed so that the objectivity of the person or organization posting the material can be assessed. [8]

[67] I find that the website links and internet information upon which Mr. Beazley seeks to rely do not meet the threshold requirement for admission into evidence. There is no affidavit evidence addressing either the subjective or objective bases for the reliability of the information: see Thorpe v. Honda Canada Inc., 2010 SKQB 39, 352 Sask. R. 78, at para. 27.

[68] I am also mindful that the Motions are proceeding by affidavit. Therefore, even if internet information were admissible, there is no opportunity for cross-examination or testing of that information before the court: see J.N. v. C.G., 2022 ONSC 1198, 64 R.F.L. (8th) 277, at para. 50.

[69] Third, Mr. Beazley acknowledges that, when preparing for the Motions, he went to at least one of the website links he provided and discovered that the website had changed. He was not taken to the document or information he expected to see. Mr. Beazley’s experience in that regard is yet another reason why providing a link to a website is insufficient for the purpose of placing documentary evidence before the court.

[70] I therefore find that, with the exception of the internet information for which the defendants do not oppose admission into evidence, the internet information is not admissible.

[71] For those reasons, the following documents are excluded: nos. 5, 39, 47, 54, 57, 59-67, 69, and 113.

d) Documents which include argument or submissions

[72] It is trite law to say that a document that includes argument or submissions from a party is not evidence.

[73] To the extent that the Documents include argument or submissions, they are not admissible. Notably, Mr. Beazley asks the court to admit both his supplementary factum and Schedule B to his original factum (document nos. 98 and 97, respectively). Both documents include argument or opinions from Mr. Beazley and are inadmissible to the extent that they do so. In any event, the issue of Mr. Beazley providing expert evidence on the Motions has already been addressed.

[74] For the reasons set out above, the following documents are inadmissible: nos. 10, 105, 107, 123 and 124.

[75] With respect to document no. 107, the defendants submit that there may be individual documents within that larger document that are otherwise admissible. In the event Mr. Beazley seeks to rely on any individual documents within document no. 107, it will be necessary to deal with the admissibility of the document(s) at the conclusion of Mr. Beazley’s submissions. Any document within document no. 107 upon which Mr. Beazley does not rely as part of his submissions will be considered by the court to fall within the scope of documents upon which Mr. Beazley abandoned reliance.

e) The video recording of testimony from a U.S. proceeding

[76] Document no. 55 is a copy of a video recording of Dr. Steven Phillips’ testimony on chronic Lyme disease and other subject matters before the “IDSA” (a term which has not been defined for this court). Dr. Phillips is described as a world-renowned expert in the field of Lyme disease who has a research background and was formerly the President of the ILADS (another term which has not been defined for the court). The video is 24 minutes long.

[77] From the transcripts of the cross-examinations of the three defence experts, it is known that the video was played for each of the experts by Mr. Beazley. Dr. Boucher refers to the video in a footnote to his report. Mr. Beazley refers to the video in his affidavit.

[78] Mr. Beazley considers this video to be of particular significance to his position on the Motions. The video is, however, inadmissible.

[79] A video falls within the scope of real evidence. Another example of real evidence is photographs. Real evidence will only be admitted where it has been authenticated. For real evidence to be authenticated requires that three criteria be met: “(1) accuracy in representing the facts; (2) fairness and absence of any intention to mislead; and (3) verification on oath by a person capable of doing so.” [9]

[80] There is no evidence addressing those three criteria. The fairness of Dr. Phillips’ testimony has not been and cannot be tested through cross-examination.

[81] Even if the video were authenticated, the court would have to be satisfied of its relevance to the issues to be determined on the Motions. It is not necessary to address relevance in the lack of evidence to support a finding that the video is authentic.

[82] Mr. Beazley submits that he is entitled to rely on the video because it was shown to the three expert witnesses during their respective cross-examinations. The fact that the Doctors’ counsel did not object to the video being played in that context does not make the video admissible on the motion. There is no need for the court to speculate as to why the Doctors’ counsel did not raise an objection to cross-examination of the defence expert witnesses with respect to the content of the video.

[83] Cross-examination of the defence expert witnesses about the video is not the type of cross-examination required for the purpose of testing the evidence given by Dr. Phillips. Cross-examination of Dr. Phillips is required to satisfy that purpose.

[84] For those reasons, the video at document no. 55 is not admissible.

Summary

[85] The court agrees with the defendants that in not opposing the admission of certain other documents, the defendants are taking a flexible approach, if not pushing the envelope, with respect to admissibility of documentary evidence. The court’s rulings are in keeping with the defendants’ position on those documents. The court does not abandon its gatekeeper function; rather it is attempting to avoid gutting Mr. Beazley’s case on the Motions. The documents which the court rules admissible on that basis are the following: nos. 1, 2, 4, 7-9, 11, 38, 42-44, 46, 48, 102 and 104.

[86] Document numbers 11, 38, 102, and 104 are admitted for a limited purpose. That purpose is set out in yellow highlighting in the Chart.

[87] As noted in an earlier section of this ruling, the documents previously admitted as evidence are nos. 3, 6, 15, 32, 33, 49, 85, 86, 88, 89, and 90.

[88] The defendants undertook to file with the court a single volume of the documents found to be admissible (relying on tab numbers which accord with the document number). For ease of reference, those documents are identified in yellow highlighting.

[89] The defendants shall serve a copy of that volume of documents on Mr. Beazley and file it with the court no later than 10 days prior to the continuation of the Motions.

[90] The volume of admissible documents shall be filed electronically. In addition, a hard copy shall be delivered to my attention at the Fifth Floor Judges’ Chambers. The delivery of a hard copy is in keeping with the January 2022 case conference order of Roger J. that all documents upon which the parties rely shall be filed in hard copy.

Madam Justice Sylvia Corthorn

Released: August 30, 2022

Doc. No. Document Text (Defs.’ Description) Page Exh. No. Document Text (Plaintiff’s Description) Defendants’ Position Plaintiff Ruling 001 Lyme Disease – Statement, Public Health Agency of Canada (screenshot of website) A8 A673-674 A681 A806 A954 259 2011 PHAC warning Feb 25, 2011 - Standards of Care (archive&true copy) Lyme Disease – Statement, Public Health Agency of Canada (screenshot) https://web.archive.org/web/20110302103742/http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/id-mi/lyme-stat-eng.php Unopposed Was put to experts on cross-examination (Dr. Wiginton Cross – Q28 (A1521), Dr. Zoutman Cross – Q31 (A1634), Dr. Newbigging Cross – Q32 (A1384) A A 002 Lyme Disease Risk Areas (screenshot) A302 A375 A678 12 OTTAWA Area Officially Declared a Lyme Endemic Risk Area 2015 Public Health Ontario (PHO) copy Unopposed Was put to experts on cross-examination (Dr. Newbigging Cross – Q22, A1374) Was referenced by Dr. Boucher in his expert report (Footnote 1, A588) Was referenced by the Plaintiff in his affidavit (Tab 3, A453) A A 003 Queensway Carleton Hospital Emergency treatment record, dated December 12, 2005 A304 A675-676 49 2015 Dec 12 QCH ER Image of 2 Lyme EM Rashes Admissible This is a medical record already included in the JBMR (see pp. F220-F235) A A 004 Email from Dr. Andrew Falconer to Lisa Buffam, dated August 15, 2016 A329 A738-A739 50 Email from Dr. Andrew Falconer to Lisa Buffam, dated August 15, 2016 - Dr Falconer QCH Salaried Chief of Staff Email – Problem - Lyme Not Being Treated Properly Under Public Hospitals Act s.34 Unopposed Was put to experts on cross-examination (Dr. Newbigging Cross – Q95, A1450) Was referenced by Dr. Boucher in his report (Footnote 34, A597) A A 005 IDSA 2006 Guideline Wormser Treatment Guidelines, proposed definition of post-Lyme disease syndrome. Footnote, “Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America”: https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/43/9/1089/422463 A336 A740-A741 116 IDSA 2006 guidelines – PCR/Culture Confirmed Test is Chronic - PTLDS Exclusion, cardiac-chest-pain-presyncope- admit&monitor IV antibiotics https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/43/9/1089/422463 Dr Boucher footnote 69 A513 Inadmissible While this documents was put to experts on cross-examination (Dr. Zoutman Cross – Q22 (A1619), Dr. Newbigging Cross – Q95 (A1451), was referenced by Dr. Boucher in his report (Footnote 69, A600), and was referenced by the Plaintiff in his affidavit (Tab 3, A439, A445, A454), it is an incomplete document A E 006 Dr Doulla – Lyme and Testing - False Negative Issues A337 A736-737 N/A (59) Dr Doulla – Lyme and Testing - False Negative Issues Admissible This is a medical record that is already before the Court in the JBMR (F1362) A A 007 Public Health Ontario Labstract - October 2012 Lyme Disease IgG/IgM – implementation of C6 peptide assay for Borrelia burgdorferi A338-A339 A756-758 A865 N/A (60) Public Health Ontario Labstract - October 2012 Lyme Disease IgG/IgM – implementation of C6 peptide assay for Borrelia burgdorferiPHO MOHLTC Ontario C6 EIA-ELISA Immunetics IgG-IgM-LAB_SD_088_LymeDisease_IgGIgM_C6 C6 ELISA test used in Ontario 2012-Nov2017 Unopposed Was referenced by Dr. Boucher in his report (Footnote 42, A598) A A 008 Correspondence from Senior Veterinary Consultant, Ministry of Health A340-A341 A759-A761 A950-A951 A1098-1099 5 1992 ONT Ministry of Health - Aug 7, 1992 Chuck Leber letter to John Scott – culture and PCR are acceptable laboratory evidence of Lyme copy Unopposed Was put to experts on cross-examination (Dr. Wiginton Cross – Q42, A1541; Dr. Zoutman Cross – Q106, A1722) A A 009 Canada Adverse Reaction Newsletter http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/alt_formats/pdf/medeff/bulletin/carn-bcei_v22n4-eng.pdf A345-A346 A687-A688 A923-A924 A972-A973 45 Health Canada – Adverse Reaction Newsletter 38% Lyme Test Warning – Lyme is a Clinical Diagnosis https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/hc-sc/migration/hc-sc/dhp-mps/alt_formats/pdf/medeff/bulletin/carn-bcei_v22n4-eng.pdf http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/alt_formats/pdf/medeff/bulletin/carn-bcei_v22n4-eng.pdf Unopposed Was put to experts on cross-examination (Dr. Wiginton Cross – Q42 (A1542), Dr. Newbigging Cross – Q50 (A1401) Was referenced by Dr. Boucher in his report (A610) A A 010 Sept17 Motion Record – Tab 22 CanadianPH-PHAC-PHO-CMOH-AMMI-doctors-claim-lyme-tests-100percent-Mar-2019 370 A379 392 Email Sept17 Motion Record – Tab 22 CanadianPH-PHAC-PHO-CMOH-AMMI-doctors-claim-lyme-tests-100percent-Mar-2019 370 cross Inadmissible This appears to be a document created by Mr. Beazley with some commentary and various web links This is not evidence and is inadmissible A E 011 Email from Mr. Beazley to Robert Murray, dated June 24, 2020, with 12 websites embedded in email (i.e. E-mails-Qfever-SOC-long-term-treatment-HCQ for Dr. Dubocq) A458-A461 186 EXH186 999 RESPONSE-TAB 04 email to Dr Robert Murray Qfever SOC “Q fever endocarditis is always fatal if untreated” https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr6203a1.htm CDC EXH309, Raoult EXH241 treatment protocols, https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/rr/rr6203.pdf https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/414865 Japan minocycline titers drop study EXH307 Dr Donta Lyme treatment protocol HCQ, HCQ links see EXH186 Higginson see EXH 186 241 307 309 Qfever Unopposed For the purpose of showing the plaintiff emailed Robert Murray on June 24, 2020 only Was referenced by the plaintiff in his affidavit (Tab 3, A452) A A 012 Email from Mr. Beazley to unknown recipient at Innovista, dated March 13, 2019 with 15 websites embedded in email: A464-A467 N/A (62) Admissibility of this document was abandoned by the plaintiff in his submissions on the return of the motion. Therefore a ruling is not required. That outcome is noted in the final column as “RNR”. RNR 013 “ QCH-Ottawa-Algorithm-for-Lyme-Disease” – Screenshot of a diagram from 2019 A484-A486 331 332 EXH 331 332 Reply – Tab3 – email CHEO Ottawa Lyme Disease Algorithm guidelines https://www.ottawapublichealth.ca/en/professionals-and-partners/resources/Documents/Ottawa-Algorithm-for-Lyme- Disease_July2019.pdf Inadmissible Was not referred to in an affidavit or put to an expert on cross-examination Post-dates the material time and is therefore irrelevant A E 014 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jarisch%E2%80%93Herxheimer_reaction Dr Boucher footnote 7 A502 (Footnote 7) N/A (66) Admissibility of this document was abandoned by the plaintiff in his submissions on the return of the motion. Therefore a ruling is not required. RNR 015 EXHB.054---SDB3-4.pdf Fax Dr Falconer QCH Chief to Dr faxed referral to Varghese ID consult Aug 15, 2016 at earliest A510 (Dr Boucher footnote 35) 54 EXHB.054---SDB3-4.pdf Fax Dr Falconer QCH Chief to Dr faxed referal to Varghese ID consult Aug 15, 2016 at earliest Admissible This document can be found in the JBMR in Dr. Varghese’s chart (see pp. F1125-F1127) A A 016 PHO_HQO Lyme Disease Guidelines Update EBM -cherry picking 87 -97% sens testing - Queens HCW CPD course.eml' Dr Boucher footnate43 A511 (Footnote 43) A1387 391 Email PHO_HQO Lyme Disease Guidelines Update EBM -cherry picking 87 -97% sens testing - Queens HCW CPD course.eml' Dr Boucher footnate43 cross Inadmissible While Dr. Boucher did footnote this article and the testimony of the experts on cross-examination is should be considered by the Court, the article has not been included as part of Mr. Beazley’s materials. On that basis, the article is not admissible A E 017 https://www.drbenboucher.ca/lyme-disease/ Dr Boucher footnote 36 A511 (Footnote 36) N/A (67) Admissibility of this document was abandoned by the plaintiff in his submissions on the return of the motion. Therefore a ruling is not required. RNR 018 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5125990/ Cook testing Dr Boucher footnote 38 A511 (Footnote 38) N/A (68) Admissibility of this document was abandoned by the plaintiff in his submissions on the return of the motion. Therefore a ruling is not required. RNR 019 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5176185/ Waddell testing Dr Boucher footnote 39 overlaps with EXH099 A511 (Footnote 39) N/A (69) Admissibility of this document was abandoned by the plaintiff in his submissions on the return of the motion. Therefore a ruling is not required. RNR 020 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6388746/ Horowitz testing Dr Boucher footnote 41 A511 (Footnote 41) N/A (70) Admissibility of this document was abandoned by the plaintiff in his submissions on the return of the motion. Therefore a ruling is not required. RNR 021 lyme-forms-tests/PHO-MOHLTC-Lyme-good-LAB_SD_088_LymeDisease_IgGIgM_C6peptide_assay_BorreliaBurgdorferi.pdf Dr Boucher footnote 42 C6 test Ontario 2012-2017 A511 (Footnote 42) N/A (71) Admissibility of this document was abandoned by the plaintiff in his submissions on the return of the motion. Therefore a ruling is not required. RNR 022 https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/lab/lab-sd-127-lyme-disease-current-test-method-information.pdf Dr Boucher footnote 42 vlsE test Ontario Nov 2017 A511 (Footnote 42) N/A (72) Admissibility of this document was abandoned by the plaintiff in his submissions on the return of the motion. Therefore a ruling is not required. RNR 023 Dr Boucher footnote 43 -PublicHealthOntario Nov2017 vlsE test change https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/lab/lab-sd-127-lyme-disease-current-test-method-information.pdf A511 (Footnote 43) A1387 N/A (73) Admissibility of this document was abandoned by the plaintiff in his submissions on the return of the motion. Therefore a ruling is not required. RNR 024 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC229763/ Hauser Euro test criteria European strains criteria sensitivity specificity Dr Boucher footnote 52 A512 (Dr Boucher footnote 52) 37 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC229763/ Hauser Euro test criteria European strains criteria sensitivity specificity Dr Boucher footnate 52 Inadmissible While Dr. Boucher does provide a footnote to this article in his report, a copy of the document has not been filed with the Court on this motion A E 025 https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/L/2016/lyme-disease-prevention-technical.pdf PHO guidelines quoted by Dr Newbigging - search for “clinical” diagnosis based on tick “exposure”,“PCR” Is accepted lab evidence of infection case def, cherry picked Aguero-Rosenfeld chart 87%, 79% ELISA based on 2 studies Dr Boucher footnote 62 appears the same as EXH172 A512 A531 172 Technical report: Update on Lyme disease prevention and control 2016 2nd edition PHO case def https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/lyme-disease-preventiontechnical.pdf?la=en https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/L/2016/lyme-disease-prevention-technical.pdf PHO guidelines quoted by Dr Newbigging - search for “clinical” diagnosis based on tick “exposure”,“PCR” Is accepted lab evidence of infection case def, cherry picked Aguero-Rosenfeld chart 87%, 79% ELISA based on 2 studies Dr Boucher footnote 62 appears the same as EXH172? Inadmissible While Dr. Boucher does provide a footnote to these guidelines in his report, a copy of the document has not been filed with the Court on this motion A E 026 https://www.microbiologyresearch.org/docserver/fulltext/jmm/54/12/1139.pdf Evans Mavin Scotland testing criteria Dr Boucher footnote 53 A512 (Footnote 53) N/A (74) Admissibility of this document was abandoned by the plaintiff in his submissions on the return of the motion. Therefore a ruling is not required. RNR 027 https://jcm.asm.org/content/56/8/e00527-18 kadkhoda testing criteria Dr Boucher footnote 55 A512 (Footnote 55) N/A (75) Admissibility of this document was abandoned by the plaintiff in his submissions on the return of the motion. Therefore a ruling is not required. RNR 028 https://www.lymedisease.org/lyme-disease-test/ testing summary Dr Boucher footnote 56 A512 (Footnote 56) N/A (76) Admissibility of this document was abandoned by the plaintiff in his submissions on the return of the motion. Therefore a ruling is not required. RNR 029 https://www.lymedisease.org/assets/Understanding-Western-Blot-Lyme-disease-test.pdf Dr Boucher footnote 57 understanding testing A512 (Footnote 57) N/A (77) Admissibility of this document was abandoned by the plaintiff in his submissions on the return of the motion. Therefore a ruling is not required. RNR 030 https://www.ilads.org/research-literature/lyme-disease-basics-for-providers/ ILADS guidelines diagnosis and open ended treatment Dr Boucher footnote 58 A512 (Footnote 58) N/A (78) Admissibility of this document was abandoned by the plaintiff in his submissions on the return of the motion. Therefore a ruling is not required. RNR 031 https://igenex.com/test-interpretations/#drawer-6 Igenex test result info Dr Boucher footnote 60 A512 (Footnote 60) N/A (79) Admissibility of this document was abandoned by the plaintiff in his submissions on the return of the motion. Therefore a ruling is not required. RNR 032 Cary Beazley Igenex Lyme test results - Igenex Laboratory Test Reports for the plaintiff, test result PCR “pos”, confirmed by Southern dot blot. EXHB.002-OTT_LAW-#9710805-v1-Records_recieved_from_IgeneX_Inc_(our_request)Rec_d_Feb_12__2019.pdf EXH002-Dr Boucher footnote 48 – not in caselines (Exhibit 2) A522 2 Cary Beazley Igenex Lyme test results - Igenex Laboratory- PCR “pos”, confirmed by Southern dot blot. EXHB.002-OTT_LAW-#9710805-v1-Records_recieved_from_IgeneX_Inc(our_request)_Rec_d_Feb_12__2019.pdf EXH002-Dr Boucher footnote 48 – not in caselines Admissible The IGenx Test results are already before the Court in the Joint Book of Medical Documents (pp. F429-F432) A A 033 Igenex Lyme test interpretation PCR(pos) confirmed by southern dot blot is positive for Lyme. 2 IgG bands – bands 41 and 58 positive meets Revised Igenex Western blot criteria positive https://igenex.com/why-igenex/comprehensive-testing/ https://igenex.com/test-interpretations/#drawer-6 EXHB.003---SDB1-3.pdf Dr Boucher footnote 50 61– not in caselines A522 3 Igenex Lyme test interpretation PCR(pos) confirmed by southern dot blot is positive for Lyme. 2 IgG bands – bands 41 and 58 positive meets Revised Igenex Western blot criteria positive https://igenex.com/why-igenex/comprehensive-testing/ https://igenex.com/test-interpretations/#drawer-6 EXHB.003---SDB1-3.pdf Dr Boucher footnote 50 61– not in caselines Admissible The IGenx Test results are already before the Court in the Joint Book of Medical Documents (pp. F429-F432) A A 034 2009 PHAC CCDR – PCR is laboratory evidence to confirm Lyme A527 N/A (65) Admissibility of this document was abandoned by the plaintiff in his submissions on the return of the motion. Therefore a ruling is not required. RNR 035 ILADS guidelines open ended https://www.ilads.org/patient-care/ilads-treatment-guidelines/ Dr Boucher footnote 83 A531 A531 A1620 Dr Boucher footnote 83 A531 103 ILADS 2013 guidelines open ended https://www.ilads.org/patient-care/ilads-treatment-guidelines/ Dr Boucher footnote 83 A531 Inadmissible While Dr. Boucher does provide a footnote to these guidelines in his report, a copy of the document has not been filed with the Court on this motion A E 036 https://www.lymedisease.org/lyme-basics/lyme-disease/diagnosis/ Dr Boucher footnote 81 – lyme diagnosis A531 (Footnote 81) N/A (80) Admissibility of this document was abandoned by the plaintiff in his submissions on the return of the motion. Therefore a ruling is not required. RNR 037 https://web.archive.org/web/20170203020039/https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/lyme-disease/health-professionals-lyme-disease.html Dr Boucher footnote 82 A531 (Footnote 82) N/A (81) Admissibility of this document was abandoned by the plaintiff in his submissions on the return of the motion. Therefore a ruling is not required. RNR 038 Email from Mr. Beazley to Sarah Virani, dated January 29, 2019 re: Lyme standard of care. Two websites embedded in email: Attachments to email: Lyme Disease Statement (webpage screenshot) (A681, also Exh. # 259) PCR test result of Mr. Beazley, dated December 7, 2016 (A682 and A955, also Exh. 2)) Detection of B. Burgdorferi in DNA by PCR (webpage screenshot) (A683 and A956, also Exh. 178) Lyme disease in Canada, 2009 webpage (A684 and A957, also Exh. 178) (Exhibit 1) A680-A684 A952-953 1 Jan 29, 2019 email to Sarah Virani of Gowlings - Lyme Standards of Care - PCR Confirmed Case of Lyme Disease - plaintiff's Lyme positive PCR results and standards of care Lyme Disease PCR “pos”,confirmed by southern dotblot EXH259 Attachment #1 - Public Health Agency of Canada - Lyme Standard of Care highlighted in plain language EXH002 Attachment #2 - cbeazley lyme positive Igenex PCR test (meeting the 2009 Canadian Lyme case definition, 1992 for Ontario and US insurance companies since 1992 https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/reports-publications/canadacommunicable-disease-report-ccdr/monthly-issue/2009-35/definitionscommunicable-diseases-national-surveillance/lyme-disease.html EXH178 Archived 2009 Lyme Disease Case definition Attachment #3 - "detection of B. burgdorferi DNA by PCR" "EM OR Objective evidence of disseminated Lyme disease includes any of thefollowing when an alternative explanation is not found: Neurological ...,Musculoskeletal ... , Cardiac …" https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/reports-publications/canadacommunicable-disease-report-ccdr/monthly-issue/2017-43/ccdr-volume-43-10-october-5-2017/surveillance-surveillance-lyme-disease-canada-2009-2015.html#fn8 ccdr Lyme disease EXH044-177Attachment #4 - "detection of B. burgdorferi DNA by PCR" Unopposed For the purpose of demonstrating the email was sent only It was put to experts on cross-examination (Dr. Wiginton Cross – Q30, A1522; Dr. Zoutman Cross – Q16, A1617; Dr. Newbigging Cross – Q38, A1391), but some documents are not complete A A 039 Lymedisease.org - CDC 2tier Surveillance Lyme Test Criteria Erroneously Used for Diagnosis has Low Sensitivity paper references https://wwwlymedisease.org/lyme-disease-test/ A685-A686 384 Lymedisease.org - CDC 2tier Surveillance Lyme Test Criteria Erroneously Used for Diagnosis has Low Sensitivity paper references https://wwwlymedisease.org/lyme-disease-test/ Inadmissible Was not referred to in an affidavit or put to an expert on cross-examination This is an incomplete document A E 040 1990 1st Dearborn Lyme test conference: https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/58061 A690-A693 A889-A892 18 1990 CDC 1st Dearborn conference - 7of20 Tests “Mean sensitivity estimates for kits ranged from 26% to 57%, and specificity estimates ranged from 12% to 60%” - extracts https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/58061 Inadmissible While this document was put to experts on cross-examination (Dr. Wiginton Cross – Q32, A1529; Dr. Newbigging Cross – Q97, A1467) it is incomplete. The plaintiff has only provided 3 of 5 pages of the document in his motion materials A E 041 1994 2nd Dearborn Lyme test conference: www.actionlyme.org/DEARBORN_PDF.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20180310082727/www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/01/slides/3680s2_11.pdf A694-A697 A893-A896 A969-A971 19 1994 Dearborn 2nd Lyme Conference – New Surveillance Criteria missing 89-98% of Cases by Many Labs – summary and front page extract only www.actionlyme.org/DEARBORN_PDF.pdf true copies from NYSML EXH 019 020 extracts of copies from FDA US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Lymerix docket testimony of Kathleen Dickson related to Lyme disease copy obtained FDA site removed – copy avaialble on wayback machine web archive. https://web.archive.org/web/20180310082727/www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/01/slides/3680s2_11.pdf Inadmissible While this document was put to experts on cross-examination (Dr. Wiginton Cross – Q32, A1529; Dr. Zoutman Cross – Q72, A1683; Dr. Newbigging Cross – Q79, A1467) the document provided is incomplete A E 042 Immunetics – Manufacturer Warning – Lyme Test A698-A700 A941-A943 89 TheC6 Lyme ELISA from Immunetics:- unsupported “marketing & sales brochure” C6 EIA Immunetics Manufacturer Lyme Test Warning – A Negative Test Result Should NOT be Used to Exclude a Lyme Diagnosis Unopposed Was put to experts on cross-examination (Dr. Wiginton Cross – Q42, A1541; Dr. Zoutman Cross – Q57, A1672; Dr. Newbigging Cross – Q23, A1376) Was referenced by the plaintiff in his affidavit (Tab 3, A454) Was referenced by Dr. Boucher in his report (Footnote 44, A598) However, unclear as to whether this is a complete copy of the document or whether this is the same test that was used in Ontario 2016 A A 043 1990 CDC Lyme Case Definitions for Public Health Surveillance: (website) https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00025629.htm A701 43 1990 CDC Lyme Case Definitions for Public Health Surveillance -&copy https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00025629.htm Unopposed Was put to experts on cross-examination (Dr. Zoutman Cross – Q70 (A1680), Dr. Newbigging Cross – Q73 (A1427) Was referenced by Dr. Boucher in his report (Footnotes 2&3 (A588) A A 044 2015-2016 PHAC - Information for health professionals on Lyme disease: (website) https://web.archive.org/web/20150509213112/http://www.healthycanadians.gc.ca/diseases-conditionsmaladies-affections/disease-maladie/lyme/professionals-professionnels/index-eng.php A706 47 180 EXH 047 121 2015-16 PHAC – HC – Lyme - Healthy Canadians – Health Professionals - Information for health professionals on Lyme disease: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/lyme-disease/healthprofessionals-lyme-disease.html https://web.archive.org/web/20151027080941/http://www.healthycanadians.gc.ca:80/diseases-conditions-maladies-affections/diseasemaladie/lyme/professionals-professionnels/index-eng.php Unopposed Was put to experts on cross-examination (Dr. Wiginton Cross – Q14 (A1506), Dr. Zoutman Cross – Q27 (A1623) Dr. Newbigging Cross – Q84 (A1437) Was referenced by the Plaintiff in his affidavit, Tab 3 (A449) A A 045 2009-15 PHAC - Lyme Disease Case Definition – Probable and Confirmed PCR+ case A715-A717 178 EXH 178, 044 2009-15 PHAC - Lyme Disease Case Definition – Probable and Confirmed PCR+ case Repeat 044 above EXH 044 178 2009 PHAC CCDR – PCR is laboratory evidence to confirm Lyme https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/reports-publications/canada-communicable-disease-report-ccdr/monthly-issue/2017-43/ccdr-volume-43-10-october-5-2017/surveillance-surveillance-lyme-disease-canada-2009-2015.html#fn8 2009-15 ccdr Lyme disease PCR lab evidence https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/reports-publications/canadacommunicable-disease-report-ccdr/monthly-issue/2014-40/ccdr-volume-40-11-may-29-2014/ccdr-volume-40-11-may-29-2014.html 2016 https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/lyme-disease/surveillance-lyme-disease/case-definition.html EXH 047 180 2015-16 PHAC – HC – Lyme - Healthy Canadians – Health Professionals see also EXH 044 178 Boucher body ref V1T4-A527 Unopposed Was referenced by the plaintiff in his affidavit (Tab 3, A439) A A 046 Lyme disease 2016 case definition: (website) https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/lyme-disease/surveillance-lyme-disease/case-definition.html A718 46 EXH 046 180 2016 Lyme Case Definition Guideline – Probable and PCR Confirmed case Lyme disease 2016 case definition: (website) https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/lyme-disease/surveillance-lyme-disease/case-definition.html Unopposed Was put to experts on cross-examination (Dr. Wiginton Cross – Q58 (A1569) Was referenced by Dr. Boucher in his report (Footnotes 5, 6, 65 & 68 (A589, A600) Was referenced by the Plaintiff in his affidavit Tab 3 (A439) A A 047 2009-15 Surveillance Case Definition – Probable case and Confirmed PCR+ A722-A724 44 EXH 044 178 2009-15 Surveillance Case Definition – Probable case and confirmed PCR+ https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/reports-publications/canadacommunicable-disease-report-ccdr/monthly-issue/2017-43/ccdr-volume-43-10-october-5-2017/surveillance-surveillance-lyme-disease-canada-2009-2015.html Inadmissible While this document was referred to by Dr. Boucher (Footnote 67, A600) and in the plaintiff’s affidavit (Tab 3, A439), it is incomplete. The plaintiff has only provided 2 of 6 pages in the motion A E 048 UpToDate – Lyme Carditis (12/14/2017) Authored by Linden Hu, MD A724-A733 118 UpToDate Lyme disease – copy from Dr Higginson TOH – Lyme disease UpToDate – life threatening complications with syncope, dypsea, chest pain symptoms should be hospitalized, monitored with cardiac telemetry, and treated with intravenous antibiotics - markups Unopposed Was put to experts on cross-examination (Dr. Newbigging Cross – Q26, A1381) A A 049 Dr. Jacobson – Lyme is a Clinical Diagnosis A734 N/A (58) Dr Jacobson – Lyme is a Clinical Diagnosis Admissible This is a medical record that is already before the Court in the JBMR (F1324-F1329) A A 050 OPH 1990 Nov 13 Dr Notenboom letter to John Scott - LymeSTAT is the “most accurate and reliable testing available” - A negligent misrepresentation A742-A744 76 Admissibility of this document was abandoned by the plaintiff in his submissions on the return of the motion. Therefore a ruling is not required. RNR 051 Access to Information Request (ATIP) ATIP PHAC-A-2013-00031.pdf Highlights A745-A756 25 Access to Information Request (ATIP) ATIP PHAC-A-2013-00031.pdf Highlights Inadmissible Was not referred to in an affidavit or put to an expert on cross-examination A complete copy has not been put before the court on the motion There are emails between individuals who are not parties to this action – these documents are not relevant A E 052 ATIP PHAC-A-2017-000114.pdf Crowns Request and Waiting for CMPA Legal Opinion A762-A764 299 386 EXH 299, 386 Email ATIP PHAC-A-2017-000114.pdf Crowns Request and Waiting for CMPA Legal Opinion Inadmissible Was not referred to in an affidavit or put to an expert on cross-examination This is an incomplete document A E 053 AMMI Position Statement – Testing and Treatment ~100% with no Evidence of Chronic Lyme or Treatment Failure-Relapse A765-A768 A871-A876 91 AMMI Position Statement – Testing and Treatment ~100% with no Evidence of Chronic Lyme or Treatment Failure-Relapse – AMMI website with highlights https://www.ammi.ca/Content/03%2E17%2E19%20%2D%20Fact%20Sheet%20%28EN%29%2Epdf AMMI fact sheet https://ammi.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/03.17.19-AMMI-Canada-Position-Statement-EN.pdf AMMI position statement Inadmissible Was not referred to in an affidavit or put to an expert on cross-examination A E 054 1992 Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield US Insurance Companies Policy A770-771 6 1992 Anthem Blue-Cross – Blue-Shield US-Insurance Companies – PCR/Culture Accepted as Proof of Infection copy Inadmissible Although this document was put to an expert on cross-examination (Dr. Newbigging Cross – Q95, A1454), it does not appear to be a complete copy of the document. In addition, it is not relevant to an issue on this motion A E 055 Video/Testimony of Steven Philips A810 A813 A1109 Item A7 (Video uploaded to caselines) 358 24 minute Dr Phillips IDSA testimony video on chronic lyme & seronegative papers – World Lyme Expert MD with research background and former ILADS guidelines president Cross exams Inadmissible Mr. Beazley has filed a copy of the video with the Court He put the video to experts on cross-examination (Dr. Wiginton Cross – Q5-6, A1496; Dr. Zoutman Cross; Dr. Newbigging Cross – Q98, A1474) Was referenced by the plaintiff in his affidavit Tab 3, A450) Was referenced by Dr. Boucher in his report (Footnote 40, A598) However, there is no information as to how this is relevant to the issues on this motion A E 056 AMMI -Waddell 2016 email brief July 15, 2019 to ClyDRN Pillar1, Aug 16 “AMMI - no chronic lyme and late stage tests are almost 100 percent according to the negligent-misrepresentation-scientific misconduct Waddell 2016 paper” A814-A823 99 AMMI -Waddell 2016 brief July 15, 2019 to ClyDRN Pillar1, Aug 16 “AMMI - no chronic lyme and late stage tests are almost 100 percent according to the negligent-misrepresentation-scientific misconduct Waddell 2016 paper” email collection https://www.ammi.ca/Content/03%2E17%2E19%20%2D%20Fact%20Sheet%20%28EN%29%2Epdf AMMI fact sheet https://ammi.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/03.17.19-AMMI-Canada-Position-Statement-EN.pdf AMMI position statement Inadmissible Was not referred to in an affidavit or put to an expert on cross-examination This appears to be a collection of portions of different documents- none of the documents are complete A E 057 BMJ Lyme disease summary C6 ELISA Footnote: C6-ELISA-is-already-99%-specific-and-diagnostic-brief-Ma-Hauser-wormser-Kalish-steere-V7.pdf A860 96 C6 ELISA is already 99% specific and diagnostic briefV5-Ma-Hauser.docx7-10% sensitivity, missed 90-93%, other years worse with Modern Ontario/NML C6 email and pdf brief Inadmissible While the document was put to experts during cross-examination Dr. Zoutman Cross – Q59. A1674; Dr. Newbigging Cross – Q69, A1423), was referenced in Dr. Boucher’s report (Footnote 46, A598) and referred to in Mr. Beazley’s affidavit (Tab 3, A450), an incomplete copy of the document has been attached to the materials A E 058 CDWR 08 MAR 1988 ELISA 24-32% sensitive http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2016/aspc-phac/H12-21-1-14-8.pdf A877-A881 15 CDWR 08 MAR 1988 ELISA 24-32% sensitive http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2016/aspc-phac/H12-21-1-14-8.pdf Inadmissible Was not referred to in an affidavit or put to an expert on cross-examination A complete copy has not been put before the court on the motion A E 059 CDWR 28 July 1990 - 1989 Manitoba study – long with many admissions, examples of negligence [see tab 1 above], exhibits Master-list A882-A888 16 CDWR 28 July 1990 - 1989 Manitoba study – long with many admissions, examples of negligence [see tab 1 above], exhibits Master-list http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2016/aspc-phac/H12-21-1-16-30.pdf Inadmissible Was not referred to in an affidavit or put to an expert on cross-examination A complete copy has not been put before the court on the motion A E 060 1996 April 16 Dr Fritz New York State memo – 81% of 1995 EM rash confirmed cases would be missed by serology testing. A908-A909 29 1996 April 16 Dr Fritz New York State memo – 81% of 1995 EM rash confirmed cases would be missed by serology testing. Inadmissible Was not referred to in an affidavit or put to an expert on cross-examination A complete copy has not been put before the court on the motion Not relevant to an issue on this motion A E 061 Footnote, “A proposal for the reliable culture of Borrelia burgdorferi from patients with chronic Lyme disease, even from those previously aggressively treated”: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9861561 A910-A911 31 A proposal for the reliable culture of Borrelia burgdorferi from patients with chronic Lyme disease, even from those previously aggressively treated. 1998 Phillips Hulínská etal https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9861561 only 9% ELISA were positive(+) for culture, PCR, immuno-electron microscopy confirmed relapse cases after 6 weeks to 6 months of antibiotics. although 55% were CDC WB+I Dr Boucher footnote 37 Inadmissible While this article was referenced by Dr. Boucher in his report (Footnote 37, A598), an incomplete copy of the document has been attached to the materials A E 062 European Lyme borreliosis: 231 culture-confirmed cases involving patients with erythema migrans . <50% were reactive by any ELISA/IFA or Western Blot test https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8816130 Strle 1996 https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3cf8/1771976b93382440be8090f430cdf0e70ff9.pdf A912-A913 32 European Lyme borreliosis: 231 culture-confirmed cases involving patients with erythema migrans . <50% were reactive by any ELISA/IFA or Western Blot test https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8816130 Strle 96 https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3cf8/1771976b93382440be8090f430cdf0e70ff9.pdf Inadmissible Was not referred to in an affidavit or put to an expert on cross-examination A complete copy has not been put before the court on the motion Not relevant to an issue on this motion A E 063 Long term and repeated electron microscopy and PCR detection of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato after an antibiotic treatment. - chronic relapses after treatment https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15068199 Honegr 2004 A914-A917 34 Long term and repeated electron microscopy and PCR detection of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato after an antibiotic treatment. - chronic relapses after treatment https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15068199 Honegr 2004 Inadmissible Was not referred to in an affidavit or put to an expert on cross-examination A complete copy has not been put before the court on the motion Not relevant to an issue on this motion A E 064 Inflammatory brain changes in Lyme borreliosis by J. Oksi et al. 1996 (i.e. Exh 35 – Chronic MRI-PCR Confirmed Brain Lesions Keep Coming Back Treated with Long Term Antibiotics) A918-A921 35 Inflammatory brain changes in Lyme borreliosis. A report on three patients and review of literature https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9010017 Oksi 1996 MRI, chronicLyme PCR confirmed brain biopsy, multiple long term antibiotics to clear MRI brain lesions. p119 table, lesions keep coming back despite repeat treatment Inadmissible Although this document was put to an expert on cross-examination (Dr. Zoutman Cross – Q98, A1715; Dr. Newbigging Cross – Q97. A1464), a complete copy has not been put before the court on the motion A E 065 2017 FDA-CDC Lyme test kit clearance Trinity IgM MarStripe A925-A927 72 2017 FDA-CDC Lyme test kit clearance for sale K172254.pdf https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/reviews/K172254.pdf IMMCO Diagnostics - A Trinity Biotech Company – IgM MarStripe 2017 FDA testkit cleared for sale ~8-12-20-31% sensitive Inadmissible Although this document was put to an expert on cross-examination (Dr. Zoutman Cross – Q90, A1704), a complete copy has not been put before the court on the motion A E 066 2017 FDA-CDC Lyme test kit clearance Trinity IgG MarStripe A928-A930 73 2017 FDA-CDC Lyme test kit clearance for sale K163095.pdf https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf16/K163095.pdf IMMCO Diagnostics - A Trinity Biotech Company – IgG MarStripe 2017 FDA testkit cleared for sale - ~17-20% Inadmissible Although this document was put to an expert on cross-examination (Dr. Zoutman Cross – Q90, A1704), a complete copy has not been put before the court on the motion A E 067 2003 FDA-CDC Lyme test kit clearance IgM ELISA A931-A932 74 2003 FDA-CDC Lyme test kit clearance for sale K0330070.pdf https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf3/K033070.pdf Trinity Biotech – IgM ELISA test 2003 comparison to the LYME STAT IGM ELISA test that was used in Ontario ~ average 47.6%, > 1 year 12.5% sensitive or 88% missed. Inadmissible Although this document was put to an expert on cross-examination (Dr. Zoutman Cross – Q90. A1704), a complete copy has not been put before the court on the motion A E 068 MOHLTC – FIPPA A-2018-00207 / KK Access request email Dr David Williams Dr Brian Schwartz, Curtiss Russell A933-A937 95 MOHLTC – FIPPA A-2018-00207 / KK Access request email Dr David Williams Dr Brian Schwartz, Curtiss Russell Inadmissible Was not referred to in an affidavit or put to an expert on cross-examination This appears to be a collection of portions of different documents- none of the documents are complete A E 069 Immunetics C6 Lyme ELISA Kit – Appendix Lyme-immunetics-c6-wb-test-kit-CF-E601-905_Automatic.pdf A944-A948 90 Immunetics C6 Lyme ELISA Kit CF-E601-905, 23 October 2014 –culture 41% cdc+ “A negative result does not exclude the possibility of infection with B. burgdorferi” Inadmissible While the document was put to experts during cross-examination (Dr. Wiginton Cross – Q35, A1532; Dr. Zoutman Cross – Q57, A1672) was referenced in Dr. Boucher’s report (Footnote 45, A598) and referred to in Mr. Beazley’s affidavit (Tab 3, A450), an incomplete copy of the document has been attached to the materials. In addition, the source of the document is not clear) A E 070 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_oM0nQ_mNYwZvdDwUqpQqKVjery_5YzS/view?usp=sharing lyme-phillips-Dr Phillips 81pages-chronic-papers-IDSA written testimony.pdf A958 83 Admissibility of this document was abandoned by the plaintiff in his submissions on the return of the motion. Therefore a ruling is not required. A RNR 071 PHO_HQO Lyme Disease Guidelines Update EBM -cherry picking 87 -97% sens testing - Queens HCW CPD course.eml' Dr Boucher footnate43 A1387 391 Email PHO_HQO Lyme Disease Guidelines Update EBM -cherry picking 87 -97% sens testing - Queens HCW CPD course.eml' Dr Boucher footnate43 cross Inadmissible While the testimony of the experts on cross-examination is should be considered by the Court, the article that Mr. Beazley references in his question has not been included as part of his materials. On that basis, the article is not admissible A E 072 Newbigging 93 Kalish Steere A1424.14 A1632-33 147 Admissibility of this document was abandoned by the plaintiff in his submissions on the return of the motion. Therefore a ruling is not required. RNR 073 Accessed interactively Internet to review Delaney C6 ELISA paper from scratchpad8.eml C6 test 0% sens from scratchpad8 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmed.2020.567350/full Interactive Internet lookup A1537 N/A (64) Accessed interactively Internet to review Delaney C6 ELISA paper from scratchpad8.eml C6 test 0% sens from scratchpad8 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmed.2020.567350/full Interactive Internet lookup Inadmissible While the testimony of the experts on cross-examination is should be considered by the Court, the article that Mr. Beazley references in his question has not been included as part of his materials. On that basis, the article is not admissible A E 074 PHAC-Chronic-Lyme-review-cardiac.pdf A1712 “valve valve valve” herx chronic A1632 390 Email PHAC-Chronic-Lyme-review-cardiac.pdf A1712 “valve valve”herx chronic Inadmissible While the testimony of the experts on cross-examination is should be considered by the Court, the article that Mr. Beazley references in his question has not been included as part of his materials. On that basis, the article is not admissible A E 075 C6 b.miyamotoi discrepancies underreporting draft scratch pad8.eml A1662 A1663 A1712 A1715 393 Email C6 b.miyamotoi discrepancies underreporting draft scratch pad8.eml cross Inadmissible While the testimony of the experts on cross-examination is should be considered by the Court, the article that Mr. Beazley references in his question has not been included as part of his materials. On that basis, the article is not admissible A E 076 IDSA-2020-guidelines-lantos-lyme-ciaa1215(1).pdf IDSA 2020 guidelines ref by Dr Zoutman “almost uniformly” A1677-1678 A1727 400 IDSA 2020 guidelines Lantos etal Lyme https://www.idsociety.org/practice-guideline/lyme-disease/ EXHB.400.IDSA-2020-guidelines-lantos-lyme-ciaa1215(1). IDSA-2020-guidelines-lantos-lyme-ciaa1215(1).pdf cross IDSA 2020 guidelines ref by Dr Zoutman “almost uniformly” Inadmissible While the testimony of the experts on cross-examination is should be considered by the Court, the article that Mr. Beazley references in his question has not been included as part of his materials. On that basis, the article is not admissible The guidelines appear to be from 2020, which post-dates the events giving rise to the claim A E 077 Middleveen Fesler California Mexico A1712, q.95 214 Middleveen Fesler California MexicoLyme Disease – Statement, Public Lyme Disease: Diversity of Borrelia Species in California and Mexico Detected Using a Novel Immunoblot Assay Fesler Shah Middleveen https://res.mdpi.com/d_attachment/healthcare/healthcare-08-00097/article_deploy/healthcare-08-00097.pdf https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32295182/ cross Inadmissible While the testimony of the experts on cross-examination is should be considered by the Court, the article that Mr. Beazley references in his question has not been included as part of his materials. On that basis, the article is not admissible A E 078 “ occi” misspel of Oksi “30of 60 prolonged Herxes” Comparison of Oral Cefixime and Intravenous Ceftriaxone Followed by Oral Amoxicillin in Disseminated Lyme Borreliosis Oksi 1998 A1715 361 Email Comparison of Oral Cefixime and Intravenous Ceftriaxone Followed by Oral Amoxicillin in Disseminated Lyme Borreliosis Oksi 1998 mythbuster https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9865985/ cross “occi” misspel of Oksi “30of 60 prolonged Herxes” Inadmissible While the testimony of the experts on cross-examination is should be considered by the Court, the article that Mr. Beazley references in his question has not been included as part of his materials. On that basis, the article is not admissible A E 079 Fwd: CLyDRN Pillar 3 testing [was PHACwebsite delta - lyme borrelia strains and coinfections2].eml #52 strains from email A1719 337 Email Fwd: CLyDRN Pillar 3 testing [was PHACwebsite delta - lyme borrelia strains and coinfections2].eml #52 strains from email Inadmissible While the testimony of the experts on cross-examination is should be considered by the Court, the article that Mr. Beazley references in his question has not been included as part of his materials. On that basis, the article is not admissible A E 080 Fwd: PHAC-website-delta- Lyme guidelines review.eml used in cross exam, NOT in #400 list Cross exam N/A (63) Fwd: PHAC-website-delta- Lyme guidelines review.eml used in cross exam, NOT in #400 list Cross exam Inadmissible The document is not included in the motion materials filed by Mr. Beazley Was not referred to in an affidavit or put to an expert on cross-examination A E 081 Sept Motion Record – TAB 18 – Exhibit shortlist -Expert Report of Dr Boucher A300-348 N/A (82) Admissibility of this document was abandoned by the plaintiff in his submissions on the return of the motion. Therefore a ruling is not required. RNR 082 81(a): Sensitivity /specificity of commercial two tier testing for Lyme disease in the US (screenshot) A303 TAB 18 N/A (82) Admissibility of this document was abandoned by the plaintiff in his submissions on the return of the motion. Therefore a ruling is not required. RNR 083 81(b): List of documents/websites provided for Expert opinion A305 A306 TAB 18 N/A (82) Admissibility of this document was abandoned by the plaintiff in his submissions on the return of the motion. Therefore a ruling is not required. RNR 084 81(c): Letter from Mr. Beazley to Dr. Boucher, dated February 17, 2021 re: Expert Opinion on Standard of Care (Litigation privileged) Chart of symptoms of Mr. Beazley (November 2015 - January 2017) appended to letter. A312-A316 TAB 18 N/A (82) Admissibility of this document was abandoned by the plaintiff in his submissions on the return of the motion. Therefore a ruling is not required. RNR 085 81(d): Public Health Ontario Laboratory report, dated May 17, 2016 (1 of 2, Incomplete document) A317 TAB 18 N/A (82) Sept Motion Record – TAB 18 – Exhibit shortlist -Dr Boucher Expert Report Unopposed Complete document is already before the court (F898-F899) A A 086 81(e): OHIP – Claims History-Doctor Encounter summary A318-A321 TAB 18 N/A (82) Sept Motion Record – TAB 18 – Exhibit shortlist -Dr Boucher Expert Report Unopposed Was referenced by Dr. Boucher in his expert report (Footnote 24, A596) A A 087 81(f): Laboratory test results, dated February 12, 2019 A322-A326 TAB 18 N/A (82) Admissibility of this document was abandoned by the plaintiff in his submissions on the return of the motion. Therefore a ruling is not required. RNR 088 81(g): Laboratory report of Mr. Beazley, dated May 13, 2016 A327 TAB 18 N/A (82) Sept Motion Record – TAB 18 – Exhibit shortlist -Dr Boucher Expert Report Unopposed Document already before the court (F894) A A 089 81(h): Medical records, of Mr. Beazley, page 5/36, print date: November 21, 2018 A328 TAB 18; and at A735 (Exhibit Highlights vol. 1) N/A (82) Sept Motion Record – TAB 18 – Exhibit shortlist -Dr Boucher Expert Report Unopposed Complete document already before the court (F1324-F1329) A A 090 81(i): Email exchange between Mr. Beazley and Lisa Buffam, dated August 29, 2016 A330-A332 TAB 18 TAB 20 A352-A354 N/A (82) Sept Motion Record–TAB18–EXH shortlist Dr Boucher Expert Report QCH Vicarious Fiduciary – Aug 29 2016 DR Falconer office Lisa Buffam – email seeking treatment once again after Dr Varghese and ER did nothing – engages Public Hospitals Act s.34 and Unopposed This email already appears in the motion materials of the Defendant Hospital (p. B-2-319) A A 091 81(j): Archived Lyme disease Case Definition webpage A333-A334 TAB 18 A684 N/A (82) Admissibility of this document was abandoned by the plaintiff in his submissions on the return of the motion. Therefore a ruling is not required. RNR 092 81(k): Dr. Doulla Records, dated August 16, 2016 A337, A736-737 TAB 18; N/A (82) Admissibility of this document was abandoned by the plaintiff in his submissions on the return of the motion. Therefore a ruling is not required. (The plaintiff also noted that this document is a duplicate of a document which appears earlier in the list and was found to be admissible.) RNR 093 81(l): List of References, dated May 16, 1997 A342 TAB 18 N/A (82) Admissibility of this document was abandoned by the plaintiff in his submissions on the return of the motion. Therefore a ruling is not required. RNR 094 81(m): Medical record, Parenteral Antibiotic Therapy Policy, dated October 1, 1997 A343-A344 TAB 18; and at A772 N/A (82) Admissibility of this document was abandoned by the plaintiff in his submissions on the return of the motion. Therefore a ruling is not required. RNR 095 81(n): Letter from Robbin Lindsay to Barbara J. Johnson re: adopting Igenex (ATIP--PHAC) A347-A348, TAB 18; at A748 at A825 and A899 and at A1070 N/A (82) Admissibility of this document was abandoned by the plaintiff in his submissions on the return of the motion. Therefore a ruling is not required. RNR 096 MotionRecord TAB 20 – Aug 29, 2016 –QCH – Email to Dr. Falconer – Lisa Buffam MOTION RECORD Emails from Mr. Beazley to Dr. Andrew Falconer, Worsening and Still Not Being Treated A355-A357 TAB 20 N/A (83) Admissibility of this document was abandoned by the plaintiff in his submissions on the return of the motion. Therefore a ruling is not required. RNR 097 Various emails from Mr. Beazley to Susan Barnes, between July 12, 2017 December 12, 2017 A358-A371 TAB 20 N/A (84) Admissibility of this document was abandoned by the plaintiff in his submissions on the return of the motion. Therefore a ruling is not required. RNR 098 Various pictures of Lyme disease rashes, dated November 2016 A372-A374 TAB 20 N/A (85) Various pictures of Lyme disease rashes, dated November 2016 Inadmissible •Was not referred to in an affidavit or put to an expert on cross-examination A E 099 MotionRecord TAB 21 – Apr 30, 2021 –CPSO Openly Threaten and Censor All Doctors After Dr Kaur-Gill Baseless Attack Re: Covid19 “CPSO Openly Threaten and Censor All Doctors”, A376-A377 TAB 21 N/A (86) Admissibility of this document was abandoned by the plaintiff in his submissions on the return of the motion. Therefore a ruling is not required. RNR 100 MotionRecord TAB 22 – 22-Canadian PH PHAC-PHO-CMOH AMMI-doctors-claim-lyme testing-100-percent-Mar-2019-email Email from Mr. Beazley to himself, dated August 29, 2021 re: scientist papers A378-A381 TAB 22 N/A (87) Admissibility of this document was abandoned by the plaintiff in his submissions on the return of the motion. Therefore a ruling is not required. RNR 101 MotionRecord TAB 23-ClyDRN.ca-QUEENS-CPD-course video-100percentsensitivity-DrKieranMoore-ON-CMOH-April-2019-email Email from Mr. Beazley to John Queenan, dated July 12, 2021, with screenshot of Zoom class A383-A384 TAB 23 N/A (88) Admissibility of this document was abandoned by the plaintiff in his submissions on the return of the motion. Therefore a ruling is not required. RNR 102 MotionRecord TAB 24-C6-poor-test discrepancy-underreporting-scratchpad-email Email from Mr. Beazley to Twylla Bird-Gayson, dated September 9, 2021, with 60 websites embedded in email A385-A392 TAB 24 N/A (89) Scratchpad7 Email Beazley to Twylla Bird-Gayson, September 9, 2021, MotionRecord TAB 24-C6-poor-test discrepancy-underreporting-scratchpad-8 60 links and extracts embedded in email many links referenced in cross Delaney C6 0% in cross scratchpad 7, 8 email cross Unopposed For the purpose of showing that the plaintiff emailed Twylla Bird-Gayson on September 9, 2021 only Was put to experts on cross-examination (Dr. Zoutman Cross – Q52, A1663; Dr. Wiginton Cross – Q39, A1536) A A 103 Screenshots of tables of different Lyme disease analysis. Unclear whether they are attachments to the previous email. A393-A402 TAB 24 N/A (90) C6 Immunetics ELISA test sensitivity - Screenshot extracts attachments email. Inadmissible •Was not referred to in an affidavit or put to an expert on cross-examination •Unclear if complete copies are before the court on the motion A E 104 MotionRecord TAB 25-159-EXH159-Queens-CPD-Dr.Kieran-Moore-CMOH-Lyme-isaclinical-diagnosis-do-notrely-on-tests-email Email from Kieran Moore to Mr. Beazley (Exh 159) Queens-CPD A403 TAB 25 N/A (91) MotionRecord TAB 25-159-EXH159-Queens-CPD-Dr.Kieran-Moore-CMOH-Lyme-isaclinical-diagnosis-do-notrely-on-tests-email Email from Kieran Moore to Mr. Beazley (Exh 159) Queens-CPD Unopposed • For the purpose of showing that the plaintiff emailed Kieran Moore on May 30, 2019 only •Was put to experts on cross-examination (Dr. Wiginton Cross – Q36, A1533; Dr. Zoutman Cross – Q82, A1700; Dr. Newbigging Cross – Q12, A1371) •Was referenced by the plaintiff in his affidavit (Tab 3, A446) A A 105 MotionRecord 26-299-EXH299-ATIPPHAC- A-2017-000114- CMPA-legal-opinioncollusion-100-percent-sensissues-C6-WCS-vlsE-emai Email from C. Beazley to C. Beazley, dated September 2, 2021 Email on ATIP extracts CMPA Legal Opinion A406 TAB 26 N/A (92) MotionRecord 26-299-EXH299-ATIP-PHAC- A-2017-000114- CMPA-legal-opinioncollusion-100-percent-sensissues-C6-WCS-vlsE-emai Email from C. Beazley to C. Beazley, dated September 2, 2021 Email on ATIP extracts CMPA Legal Opinion Inadmissible While this document was put to an expert on cross-examination (Dr. Newbigging Cross – Q64, A1420), it sets out the plaintiff’s argument Copies of the links listed have not been put before the court on the motion A E 106 REPLY TAB 03—QCH-Ottawa-Algorithm-for-Lyme-Disease-July2019-EXH-331-332-TAB“QCH-Ottawa-Algorithm-for-Lyme-Disease” – Screenshot of a diagram from 2019 A485-A486 TAB 03 N/A (93) REPLY TAB 03—QCH-Ottawa-Algorithm-for-Lyme-Disease-July2019- EXH-331-332 -TAB“QCH-Ottawa-Algorithm-for-Lyme-Disease” – Screenshot of a diagram from 2019 Inadmissible Was not referred to in an affidavit or put to an expert on cross-examination Post-dates the material time and is therefore irrelevant A E 107 RESPONSE TAB 03 – Gowlings Affidavit & Expert Report Rebuttal of Cary Beazley – v2 with embedded screenshots of Qfever paper, QC Lyme Risk areas and supporting links 89(f): https://www.inspq.qc.ca/zoonoses/maladie-de-lyme Screenshot of table of patient profiles and improvement of several symptoms. A439-A457 TAB 03 A455 A451 A467 TAB 03 TAB 05 N/A (94) RESPONSE TAB 03 –Affidavit & Expert Report Rebuttal of Cary Beazley v2 QC Lyme Risk areas and supporting links https://www.inspq.qc.ca/zoonoses/maladie-de-lyme Screenshot of table of patient profiles and improvement of several symptoms. Inadmissible to the extent it includes argument or opine evidence the plaintiff is not qualified to provide; Individual documents referenced may be admissible A E 108 93(a): Lyme Case Definitions: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/reports-publications/canadacommunicable-disease-report-ccdr/monthly-issue/2009-35/definitions-communicablediseases-national-surveillance/lyme-disease.html (A439) A715 N/A (94) Admissibility of this document was abandoned by the plaintiff in his submissions on the return of the motion. Therefore a ruling is not required. RNR 109 93(b): https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/lyme-disease/surveillance-lymedisease/case-definition.html A718 N/A (94) Admissibility of this document was abandoned by the plaintiff in his submissions on the return of the motion. Therefore a ruling is not required. RNR 110 93(c): https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/0003-4819-136-6-200203190-00005 A440 Tab 3 N/A (94) RESPONSE TAB 03 –Affidavit & Expert Report Rebuttal of Cary Beazley v2 EXH 162 https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/0003-4819-136-6-200203190-00005 Clinical Characteristics and Treatment Outcome of Early Lyme Disease in Patients with Microbiologically Confirmed Erythema Migrans Smith 02 Inadmissible A copy of the document has not been put before the court on the motion A E 111 93(d): https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications/diseases-conditions/nationallyme-disease-surveillance-canada-2009-2012.html A440 Tab 3 N/A (94) Admissibility of this document was abandoned by the plaintiff in his submissions on the return of the motion. Therefore a ruling is not required. RNR 112 93(e): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprosy A452 Tab 3 N/A (94) RESPONSE TAB 03 –Affidavit & Expert Report Rebuttal of Cary Beazley v2 Inadmissible A copy of the document has not been put before the court on the motion E 113 93(f): https://www.inspq.qc.ca/zoonoses/maladie-de-lyme A455 N/A (94) RESPONSE TAB 03 –Affidavit & Expert Report Rebuttal of Cary Beazley v2 https://www.inspq.qc.ca/zoonoses/maladie-de-lyme QC Lyme risk maps Inadmissible While this document was referred to by the plaintiff in his affidavit (Tab 3, A453), it is unclear if a complete copy is before the court on the motion A E 114 93(g): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC266355/ A453 TAB 3 N/A (94) RESPONSE TAB 03 –Affidavit & Expert Report Rebuttal of Cary Beazley v2 EXH134 2005 Aguero Serodiagnosis in early Lyme disease - quoted by PHO cherry pick https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC266355/ Inadmissible A copy of the document has not been put before the court on the motion A E 115 93(h): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8436647/ A454 Tab 3 N/A (94) RESPONSE TAB 03 –Affidavit & Expert Report Rebuttal of Cary Beazley v2 Recurrent erythema migrans despite extended antibiotic treatment with minocycline in a patient with persisting Borrelia burgdorferi infection https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8436647/ Liegner 93 EXH373 Inadmissible A copy of the document has not been put before the court on the motion A E 116 93(i): https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/25/Supplement_1/S64/523871 A454 Tab 3 N/A (94) Admissibility of this document was abandoned by the plaintiff in his submissions on the return of the motion. Therefore a ruling is not required. RNR 117 93(j): https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9032/6/2/33 A454 Tab 3 N/A (94) RESPONSE TAB 03 –Affidavit & Expert Report Rebuttal of Cary Beazley v2 EXH303 Middelveen 12 patients Persistent Borrelia Infection in Patients with Ongoing Symptoms of Lyme Disease https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9032/6/2/33 Middleveen “12 patients” Inadmissible A copy of the document has not been put before the court on the motion A E 118 93(k): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC280920/ (A454) A454 Tab 3 N/A (94) RESPONSE TAB 03 –Affidavit & Expert Report Rebuttal of Cary Beazley v2 EXH 096 147 317 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC280920/ 93 kalish steere Association of treatment-resistant chronic Lyme arthritis with HLA-DR4 and antibody reactivity to OspA and OspB of Borrelia burgdorferi. Inadmissible A copy of the document has not been put before the court on the motion A E 119 93(l): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9865985/ A454 Tab 3 N/A (94) RESPONSE TAB 03 –Affidavit & Expert Report Rebuttal of Cary Beazley v2 EXH361 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9865985/ Oksi 98 Comparison of oral cefixime and intravenous ceftriaxone followed by oral amoxicillin in disseminated Lyme borreliosis - long herx Inadmissible A copy of the document has not been put before the court on the motion A E 120 RESPONSE TAB 04 – Email-Qfever-SOC-long-term-treatment-HCQ-for-Dr.Dubocq email to Dr Rob Murray on Qfever SOC, Raoult & CDC treatment protocols, links to HCQ Dr Donta Lyme treatment protocol A459 A462-463 N/A (95) Admissibility of this document was abandoned by the plaintiff in his submissions on the return of the motion. Therefore a ruling is not required. RNR 121 RESPONSE TAB 05-EXH186-Qfever literature-and Cardiactesting-DrHigginson-TOH Ottawa Heart Institure eamil.pdf email Subject: Qfever literature and Cardiac testing – collection of Qfever diagnosis and treatment literature for Dr Higginson Guidelines to diagnosis and treatment of Lyme Disease A465 A462-A463 TAB 04 N/A (96) Admissibility of this document was abandoned by the plaintiff in his submissions on the return of the motion. Therefore a ruling is not required. RNR 122 REPLY QCH - Affidavit of Colette Ouellet, pg.1 Corrections Website embedded in the Reply Motion Record for Summary Judgment of the plaintiff Cary Beazley: https://www.ottawapublichealth.ca/en/professionals-and-partners/resources/Documents/Ottawa-Algorithm-for-Lyme-Disease_July2019.pdf A482 TAB 02 N/A (97) Admissibility of this document was abandoned by the plaintiff in his submissions on the return of the motion. Therefore a ruling is not required. RNR 123 DEC31 FACTUM SCHEDULE B - Expert Report Corrections & Rebuttals Cross-Exam Arguments v3 PHO PCR available on test menu web site image PHAC-NML PCR and serology test menu A558 A569 A570 N/A (98) DEC31 FACTUM SCHEDULE B - Expert Report Corrections & Rebuttals Cross-Exam Arguments v3 PHO PCR available on test menu web site image – near bottom https://www.publichealthontario.ca/en/laboratory-services/test-information-index/lyme-disease-serology PHAC-NML PCR and serology test menu https://cnphi.canada.ca/gts/laboratory/1019 Inadmissible to the extent it includes argument or opine evidence the plaintiff is not qualified to provide A E 124 FEB 18 Supplementary Factum Dr. Wiginton’s cross-examination, rebuttal and highlights A1781-A1785 TAB 03 N/A (99) FEB 18 Supplementary Factum Dr. Wiginton’s cross-examination, rebuttal and highlights Inadmissible to the extent is includes argument or opinion evidence the plaintiff is not qualified to provide A E

APPENDIX

August 30, 2022: At paragraph 71, document no. “42” has been removed. The requisite amendment has also been made to the chart at Schedule A, for document no. 42 (i.e., the document is admitted as evidence and, therefore, the “E” has been changed to “A”).

COURT FILE NO.: 17-74859 DATE: 2022/08/30 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: CARY BEAZLEY Plaintiff – and – DR. MARY JOHNSTON, DR. JAMES GILL, DR. PRAVIN SHUKLE, DR KALPESH RAICHURA, DR. ROBERT GAUVREAU, DR. LAWRENCE NORMAN , DR. MARIKO HASHIMOTO, DR MARK TRECARTEN, DR BASKAR GOPALAN, DR. NATALIE KESES, DR DEAN HOLDEN , DR JAMES WARD, DR ELLEN HENRY , DR GUY HEBERT, DR MARTIN GREEN, DR. PABLO NERY , DR. ADAM NICHOLSON, DR ADAM COHN, DR DONALD HARRIS, DR KUAN CHIN CHEN , DR. ELIZABETH SCOTT, DR GORDON KEE , DR HYMAN RABINOVITCH, DR DANIEL CHUKWU, DR KADAMBI SITARAM , DR KARI SAMPSEL, DR GETNET ASRAT, DR RICHARD MOXON, DR STEPHEN CHOI, DR PABLO NERY, DR. SAMUEL HETZ , DR. JACINDA WONG, DR ROBERT NICHOLS, DR. SUNIL VARGHESE, DR. DAVID DAVIDSON, DR. NINA RAMIC, DR JANE DOE, DR JOHN DOE, THE ONTARIO MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND LONG TERM CARE , QUEENSWAY CARLETON HOSPITAL and PUBLIC HEALTH AGENCY OF CANADA Defendants AMENDED INTERIM Ruling (N o . 2) ( Motions For Summary Judgment) Madam Justice Sylvia Corthorn

Released: August 30, 2022

[1] The “Expert – Rebuttal – report – Cary Beazley” is one of the documents that is the subject of my earlier ruling with respect to Mr. Beazley’s request for an order permitting him to provide the court with expert opinion evidence: see Beazley v. Johnston et al., 2022 ONSC 1739.

[2] The Exhibit Highlights are referred to as “volumes”, with a lower case “v”, so as to distinguish them from Volumes of the Plaintiff Caselines Documents.

[3] Statement of Principles, at p. 4.

[4] Statement of Principles, at p. 4.

[5] Statement of Principles, at p. 7.

[6] In July 2021, Associate Justice Fortier conducted a case conference and released an endorsement related to these motions.

[7] For some of these documents, there is an additional reason why they are not admissible. For example, for some of the documents an incomplete copy of the document is included in the record. I have not, for the purpose of this ruling, identified when the defendants rely on multiples bases in their objection to the admission of a document.

[8] These criteria are originally set out in the decision of Tremblay-Lamer J. in ITV Technologies Inc. v. WIC Television Ltd., 2003 FC 1056, 239 F.T.R. 203, aff’d 2005 FCA 96, 251 D.LR. (4th) 208. Price J. refers to them in Sutton.

[9] S.N. Lederman, A.W. Bryant & M.K. Fuerst, Sopinka, Lederman & Bryant – The Law of Evidence in Canada, 4th ed. (Markham: LexisNexis, 2014), at p. 44, §2.20 and 2.21.