Sewanaku v The Ottawa Hospital et al
CITATION: Sewanaku v The Ottawa Hospital et al, 2026 ONSC 2859
COURT FILE NO.: CV-25-101032
DATE: May 14, 2026
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Sewanaku v The Ottawa Hospital et al
BEFORE: Associate Justice Kamal
COUNSEL: Michael Karl Sewanaku, self-represented for the Plaintiff
Alexander Carden for the defendants Dr. Edward Seale, Dr. Shauna Bassel, Dr. Krista Wooller, Dr. Justine Callahan, Dr. Sandra (“Sandy”) Tse, Dr. Kendall Noel, Dr. Adam Jones-Delcorde, Dr.Richard Johnson and Dr. Rishi Kapur
Paige Miltenburg, for the defendant, the Ottawa Hospital
DATE: May 14th, 2026
CASE CONFERENCE ENDORSEMENT
Background and Overview of the Positions
[1] The purpose of the conference was to triage the Ottawa Hospital’s request to proceed to a Summary Judgement Motion.
[2] The Ottawa Hospital requested an urgent case conference to triage this request because they want their motion to be heard along with two motions brought by the University.
[3] The University has brought a motion to strike the plaintiff’s claims as against it under Rule 21 as well as an anti-SLAPP motion pursuant to section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act. These motions are scheduled for June 11, 2026.
[4] By way of background, this is an academic dispute.
[5] The plaintiff, Dr. Sewanaku, is a medical resident/trainee in the Family Medicine Residency Program (the “Program”) in the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Ottawa (the “University”).
[6] Dr. Sewanaku began his placement at the Ottawa Hospital on July 1, 2023. His relationship with the Ottawa Hospital is governed by a collective agreement between Ontario teaching hospitals and medical residents in Ontario.
[7] On September 2, 2025, the plaintiff commenced an action against the University, several independent physicians appointed by the University as clinical faculty members, and the Ottawa Hospital.
[8] The plaintiff is self-represented. He alleges discrimination, defamation, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation (or in the alternative, breach of confidence), during his participation in the Program by clinical faculty members appointed by the University.
[9] He further claims the University was negligent in the evaluation process for the Program.
[10] He alleges the Ottawa Hospital is vicariously liable as his “joint employer” with the University and for the alleged conduct of clinical faculty members with privileges at the Ottawa Hospital. He also claims the Ottawa Hospital breached its workplace policies and failed to maintain a harassment-free work environment.
[11] Dr. Sewanaku has sought redress in multiple forums, including a judicial review, HRTO complaint, and labour board proceeding. These proceedings are ongoing.
[12] The University’s motion under Rule 21, as well as an anti-SLAPP motion, is scheduled to proceed on June 11, 2026, for a full day.
[13] The Ottawa Hospital requests leave to proceed to a summary judgment motion alongside the University’s motion, or one after another. Essentially, they would like the motions to be heard by the same judge.
[14] The Ottawa Hospital submits that both motions together, if successful, will resolve the litigation in its entirety. They submit that it is the best use of the court’s time and resources to have these motions heard together by the same judge who is familiar with the facts.
[15] The Ottawa Hospital submits that their summary judgement motion should be heard along with the University’s motion because of efficiency and would not undermine the efficacy of 137.1.
[16] The University and clinical faculty member defendants agree that the motions should be heard together or one after another. They also agree to adjourn their motion if needed.
[17] The plaintiff does not consent to an adjournment of the June 11, 2026 motion and does not agree that the motions should be heard together. The plaintiff also argues that the Ottawa Hospital’s motion for summary judgement is not appropriate because it is fact-heavy.
Analysis
Section 137.1(5) of the CJA
[18] The Ottawa Hospital pointed me to cases that they submit support their position that the Summary Judgement Motion is not prohibited from proceeding along with the section 137.1 motion.
[19] The Ottawa Hospital candidly advised that there is no case similar, particularly wherein the party bringing the summary judgement motion is not a party to the anti-SLAPP motion or where the summary judgement motion is being brought after the s. 137.1 motion is brought.
[20] First, they relied on Boyer v. Callidus Capital Corporation, 2022 ONSC 3772. In that case, at para. 21, the ONSC considered Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 183 v. Castellano, 2020 ONCA 71, and stated that “The Court of Appeal, at para. 7, agreed with the appellant that the motion judge did not err in hearing the s. 137.1 motion at the same time as the summary judgment motion, holding that “[t]here is no statutory or other prohibition against proceeding in this manner”, and that it was within the discretion of the motion judge to determine the order in which the motions would be addressed. The Court of Appeal did not expressly address s. 137.1(5) of the CJA in its decision.”
[21] However, the ONCA in Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 183 v. Castellano was considering whether a section 137.1 motion would be precluded because a summary judgement motion had already been brought (see para. 8).
[22] In the case at Bar, the situation is reversed. The section 137.1 motion has already been brought, and therefore, the automatic stay in section 137.1(5) is already in place. The summary judgement motion has not been brought yet.
[23] Looking further at the Boyer case, at para. 22, the Court relied on the decision of Boswell J. in The Catalyst Capital Group Inc. v. West Face Capital Inc., 2021 ONSC 125. In West Face, Boswell J. addressed the jurisdictional issue raised by counsel for one of the parties in relation to s. 137.1(5) of the CJA. Justice Boswell held that the purpose of s. 137.1(5) is clear:
The prohibition on any further steps in a proceeding once an anti-SLAPP motion has been served prevents parties from engaging in extraneous litigation that may undermine the efficiency of the process established by section 137.1 or otherwise compound the mischief the anti-SLAPP provisions are designed to prevent. See United Soils Management Ltd. v. Mohammed, 2017 ONSC 904, para. 16.
[24] Justice Boswell held, at para. 197, that the plain wording of the s. 137.1(5) makes it apparent that it is non-discretionary and permits no exceptions. Justice Boswell held that it may be possible to draw a distinction between steps in the proceeding and steps in the motion and he concluded that steps in the proceeding are stayed by s. 137.1(5) whereas steps within the anti-SLAPP motion itself are permissible, in the court’s discretion, which “must be exercised having regard to the purposes and goals of the anti-SLAPP statutory regime – principally efficiency and economy”.
[25] Everyone agreed that the Ottawa Hospital’s summary judgement motion is a step in the proceeding, not a step in the anti-SLAPP motion.
[26] I agree with Justice Boswell that s. 137.1(5) makes it apparent that it is non-discretionary and permits no exceptions.
[27] Section 137.1(5) of the Courts of Justice Act provides that once a section 137.1 motion is made, “no further steps may be taken in the proceeding by any party until the motion, including any appeal of the motion, has been finally disposed of.”
[28] The Ottawa Hospital’s proposed summary judgement motion is a separate step in the proceeding. It is not a step within the anti-SLAPP motion itself.
[29] The weight of the authorities, particularly The Catalyst Capital Group Inc. v. West Face Capital Inc. and Boyer v. Callidus Capital Corporation, makes it clear that there are no exceptions for a step in the proceeding may not be taken until the motion, including any appeal of the motion, has been finally disposed of.
[30] Therefore, in my view, section 137.1(5) is a bar to the Ottawa Hospital’s motion proceeding alongside the section 137.1(5) motion.
Efficiency
[31] Counsel for the Ottawa Hospital also made submissions that it would be more efficient to have the motion heard together or one after another.
[32] This submission was based on the Ottawa Hospital’s position that the two motions stem from the same facts and therefore, should be heard by the same judge.
[33] However, counsel for the Ottawa Hospital also advised that the motions raise different legal issues, require different legal tests, and involve different parties. As mentioned, the Ottawa Hospital will not be participating in the University’s motion.
[34] Furthermore, the Ottawa Hospital also confirmed that if the motions were heard together, they would need 2 days. The University’s motion is currently scheduled for only 1 day.
[35] Therefore, the court would not actually save any time by having the motions heard together.
[36] The Ottawa Hospital submitted that having the same judge hear both motions would mean the judge would have a deeper understanding of the case.
[37] I disagree. The legal tests are different on the motions, and whether it is one judge or two, our judiciary is well-equipped to hear motions and cases that have been previously presided over by another judge.
[38] In my view, there would not be any efficiency in having the motions heard together or one after another by the same judge.
Prejudice
[39] The Ottawa Hospital states that it would be prejudicial to them for their summary judgement motion to wait until after the University’s motions because they will be dragged along in the litigation unnecessarily. They advised that they would have to wait until any appeal of the section 137.1 motion is disposed of, which is a prejudicial delay to them.
[40] The Ottawa Hospital advised that they do not intend to participate in the University’s motion and would likely not participate in any appeal.
[41] I inquired about what the prejudice to the Ottawa Hospital would be. They advised that it would just be that they would have to wait. In my view, in the present case, the mere passage of time is not prejudicial, particularly considering the late request by the hospital to even bring this motion.
[42] Counsel for the Ottawa Hospital confirmed that there would not be any financial prejudice, as they do not intend to participate in the University’s motion and would likely not participate in any appeal.
[43] Accordingly, I am not persuaded that waiting for the section 137.1(5) motion to be disposed of before the Ottawa Hospital’s summary judgement motion would be prejudicial.
[44] The Plaintiff also submitted that it would be prejudicial for the motion to be heard together because he is on leave without pay. He submitted that because the Ottawa Hospital and the University seek to adjourn the University’s motion to hear the motions together, this delay would be prejudicial to him. As I am not permitting the motions to be heard together and the University’s motion is proceeding, I do not need to address this argument.
[45] Accordingly, the Ottawa Hospital is not granted leave to proceed with the summary judgement motion.
[46] For clarity, I am not permitting the Ottawa Hospital to proceed solely based on the automatic stay of section 137.1(5). I make no determination or comment on the suitability of a summary judgement motion.
[47] For further clarity, the University’s motion to strike the plaintiff’s claims as against it under Rule 21, as well as an anti-SLAPP motion pursuant to section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, shall proceed as scheduled and in accordance with the timetable previously set.
______________________________________
Associate Justice Kamal