He says craniotomy was unnecessary as he had a stroke, not terminal brain cancer
Following the summary dismissal of a former doctor and lawyer’s civil fraud and negligence claims against his treating physicians, the British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed his applications for an extension of time to appeal and a no fees order.
When he was 74 years old, the appellant in Bahinipaty v. Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (Vancouver General Hospital), 2026 BCCA 359, visited the Vancouver General Hospital (VGH) emergency department in January 2016.
The appellant complained about dizziness, dehydration, slurred speech, and weakness on his right side. That night, he had a computed tomography (CT) scan and received a brain tumour diagnosis. The next day, VGH’s neurosurgery head performed a craniotomy on the appellant.
Medical negligence and civil fraud claims
In 2017, the appellant commenced an action against the respondents: Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, operating as VGH, and eight physicians.
The appellant alleged that his treating physicians deliberately, intentionally, and fraudulently misdiagnosed his stroke as terminal brain cancer and made him undergo an unnecessary craniotomy for the neurosurgery head’s financial benefit.
Supreme Court of British Columbia dismisses claims
In December 2019, the Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed the appellant’s action against VGH, with the claim against the physicians set for a 25-day trial in January 2026.
On Feb. 10, 2025, the physicians applied for a summary dismissal under r. 9‑7 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, B.C. Reg. 168/2009.
On Aug. 18, 2025, Justice Ormiston summarily dismissed the action against the physicians. The judge considered a summary trial appropriate because the court could summarily resolve the issues without a 25-day trial.
Regarding the appellant’s civil fraud claim, the judge determined that the evidence did not support his “serious and scandalous” allegations or the neurosurgery head’s benefits from the surgery, given uncontradicted evidence that he did not receive a payment per surgery.
As for the appellant’s negligence claim, the judge found that the appellant’s research on why the physicians should have identified his stroke before the craniotomy was inadmissible under r. 11‑2(1) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules because it was not impartial opinion evidence.
Requests for extension and no fees
The appellant applied for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal and a no fees order.
The appellant submitted that he was 86 years old, had no apparent means to generate income, had a gross household income of $2,400, resided alone in a basement suite, and experienced cognitive difficulties due to his craniotomy.
British Columbia Court of Appeal grants extension of time
The BC Court of Appeal addressed the five criteria for applications for extensions of time to appeal, as stated in Davies v. C.I.B.C., 1987 CanLII 2608 (BC CA).
First, the appeal court saw no bona fide intention to appeal within the time required. The appeal court noted that the appellant applied to extend the time to appeal on Apr. 30, 2026, seven months after the deadline to file and serve a notice of appeal on Sept. 17, 2025.
Second, while acknowledging the appellant’s cognitive challenges, the appeal court found no mention that he had informed the respondents of his intention to appeal within the 30-day appeal period.
Third, the appeal court held that proceeding to trial would result in limited prejudice to the respondents.
Fourth, the appeal court saw potential merit in the appeal of the negligence claim based on the judge’s approach to the appellant’s proposed expert evidence.
“This case is unique in that the appellant has medical expertise that could potentially make him a properly qualified expert in certain areas,” Justice Michael Brundrett wrote for the appeal court.
The appeal court noted that the judge said the appellant’s lack of independence disqualified him under rr. 11‑1(1) and (2) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules and the requirements for threshold admissibility in White Burgess Langille Inman v. Abbott and Haliburton Co., 2015 SCC 23.
However, the appeal court pointed out that the judge should have considered whether the appellant could be a participant expert not covered by r. 11‑2, which applied to an expert appointed “by one or more parties or by the court.”
Thus, the appeal court identified the following potential issues: whether to classify the appellant as a participant expert, and whether r. 11‑2 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules applied to him.
Fifth, the appeal court ruled that extending the time would serve the interests of justice.
No fees order issued
According to the BC Court of Appeal, requiring the appellant to pay court fees would cause him undue hardship.
The appeal court did not consider the appeal scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, abusive of the court process, or bound to fail in connection with his negligence claim.
BC Court of Appeal’s other cases involving health professionals
Here are some other recent decisions from the Court of Appeal for British Columbia relating to medical professionals in the province.
In a case involving physician-prescribed pain medications, the appeal court issued a Mar. 6 decision seeing error in a finding that ss. 26.2 and 53 of BC’s Health Professions Act, 1996, denied access to the court, in breach of s. 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
In a medical malpractice action arising from trigger-point needling treatment performed by a physiatrist, the appeal court made a December 2025 decision affirming findings that the patient could not prove her claims for negligence and lack of informed consent without expert evidence.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest medical malpractice law news on the main page!
