Doctor alleged misfeasance in public office, negligence, contractual breach
The British Columbia Court of Appeal has set aside a judge’s order denying a psychiatrist’s request for leave to amend his pleadings against the respondents, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia and the Northern Health Authority (NHA).
The psychiatrist – the appellant in Afridi v College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, 2026 BCCA 378 – received his education and training in Pakistan and Ireland before relocating to British Columbia in 2016.
The respondent regulator granted the doctor a provisional license to practise as a psychiatrist under BC’s now-repealed Health Professions Act, 1996. The NHA, a regional health board, sponsored the doctor.
Created under the province’s Health Authorities Act, 1996, the NHA delivered regional health care services in northern communities, such as Fort St. John, where the doctor worked from 2016–18.
Psychiatrist’s action for damages
The doctor claimed damages for:
- the alleged wrongdoing of some NHA physicians who supervised him
- the NHA’s cancellation of its sponsorship of him in fall 2018, which prompted the regulator to cancel his provisional licence
- his inability to practise medicine for around 14 months until the regulator fully licensed him in December 2019
The doctor requested leave to further amend his notice of civil claim.
Regulator’s and health board’s application to strike
Both respondents applied to strike the doctor’s amended claim.
On Oct. 30, 2025, a chambers judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia granted the applications to strike under r. 9-5(1) of BC’s Supreme Court Civil Rules. The judge did not permit the doctor to further amend his claim.
The judge awarded the respondents their costs of the action and applications thus far.
Doctor’s appeal
On appeal, the doctor challenged the chambers judge’s refusal to allow him to further amend his pleading.
The doctor argued that the judge committed a legal error by failing to recognize that the pleading disclosed reasonable causes of action for claims of misfeasance in public office against both respondents, as well as for negligence and contractual breach claims against the NHA.
BC Court of Appeal partly allows appeal
The BC Court of Appeal set aside the chambers judge’s order insofar as it did not permit the doctor to further amend his notice of civil claim. The appeal court held that allowing further amendments would not unduly prejudice the NHA and the regulator.
Thus, the appeal court granted the doctor leave to reapply before the BC Supreme Court for leave to further amend his claim to properly plead misfeasance claims against both respondents, as well as negligence and contractual breach claims against the NHA.
According to the appeal court, it could not finally determine whether the misfeasance claims were legally viable without a proper statement of the legal basis for the remaining claims to be asserted.
Disclosing a reasonable claim
First, the BC Court of Appeal addressed r. 9-5(1)(a), which allowed the court to strike a pleading for lack of a reasonable claim. The appeal court ruled that the chambers judge applied an excessively high standard when considering whether the claim was plainly and obviously bound to fail.
The appeal court noted that the judge did not cite any cases that set the test at “meticulous” or “unimpeachable” compliance with the rules in weighing whether to strike the pleading.
The appeal court held that the judge’s error impacted his analysis under rr. 9-5(1)(b) and (d) and his assessment of the doctor’s application for leave to make additional amendments.
Striking a claim for being vexatious or abusive
Next, the BC Court of Appeal tackled rr. 9-5(1)(b) and (d), which permitted the striking of a pleading for being unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise abusive of the court’s process.
The appeal court ruled that the chambers judge erred in considering the doctor’s conduct in proceedings beyond the present matter. Specifically, the judge relied on the BC Human Rights Tribunal’s findings of contemptuous conduct in a proceeding involving the NHA.
The BC Court of Appeal held that the doctor’s conduct in the human rights proceeding would not, by itself, support a finding that the present civil action was abusive and vexatious.
Moreover, the appeal court saw an error in the judge’s decision to grant the “drastic remedy” of striking the pleading based on an abuse of process without leave to amend.
The appeal court concluded that the judge did not give enough weight to relevant considerations on the issue of abuse of process. The appeal court stressed that a court could strike a pleading for abuse of process only in the clearest cases and when the abuse was at the high end of the spectrum.
Appeal court’s cost ruling
The BC Court of Appeal set aside the chambers judge’s award of costs of the action to the respondents, given that the BC Supreme Court action remained ongoing due to the appeal court’s conclusion.
However, the appeal court did not set aside the judge’s award of application costs to the respondents, who successfully asked for the striking of the amended claim.
In light of the appeal’s limited success, the appeal court noted that the parties could agree on a cost order or provide cost submissions.
BC Court of Appeal’s other cases on health professionals
Here are some other recent decisions from the Court of Appeal for British Columbia involving medical professionals in the province.
Following the summary dismissal of a former doctor and lawyer’s civil fraud and negligence claims against his treating physicians, the appeal court issued an Aug. 28 decision allowing his applications for an extension of time to appeal and a no fees order.
In a case involving physician-prescribed pain medications, the appeal court made a Mar. 6 ruling finding error in a conclusion that ss. 26.2 and 53 of the Health Professions Act denied access to the court, in breach of s. 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest medical malpractice law news on the main page!
