Ontario Superior Court refuses to dismiss medical negligence case under frivolous litigation rule

A motor vehicle accident victim asserted he was prescribed an unauthorized medication by the doctors

Ontario Superior Court refuses to dismiss medical negligence case under frivolous litigation rule

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice refused to dismiss a medical negligence claim against two doctors on the ground that the litigation is frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court found that the issues raised in the pleadings about the treatment and the drug prescription were sufficient to survive a rule 2.1 review, which addresses frivolous, vexatious, or abusive litigation.

The claim against Dr. David Holt and Dr. Raymond Zatzman originated from allegations made by a motor vehicle accident victim, who asserts he was prescribed an unauthorized drug called “Kratom,” leading to severe adverse effects.

The court reviewed the case under rule 2.1, following requests from several defendants and legal representatives involved in the case. The rule requires the court to holistically assess the validity of claims, even if some parties involved did not request a review.

The Superior Court highlighted the difficulties of medical negligence claims, which often require substantial expert testimony against medical professionals. However, the initial pleadings raised enough questions about the alleged treatment and drug prescription to warrant further examination, thus not meeting the threshold for dismissal under rule 2.1. The court underscored the rule's intent to quickly end abusive litigation without extensive examination of the case merits, typically reserved for more detailed motions.

Regarding the plaintiff’s insurer, State Farm/Certas, the court noted an unclear connection between the insurer and the medical services provided, emphasizing that the court does not have jurisdiction over disputes concerning the administration of statutory accident benefits, which are governed by a specialized tribunal.

Additionally, the claims against the lawyers and law firms representing the doctors and the insurer were scrutinized  by the court under the same rule for abuse of process. The court reaffirmed the legal principle that there is no recognized cause of action against lawyers representing an adversary, given their duty to defend their clients’ interests robustly. This duty is protected to ensure lawyers can perform their roles without fear of retribution through litigation from opposing parties.

As a result, the court is considering dismissing the proceeding against all defendants except Dr. Holt and Dr. Zatzman. The plaintiff has been allowed to respond and justify the continuation of the claims against these two doctors, with further submissions from both sides to be reviewed before a final decision is made.

Recent articles & video

Roundup of law firm hires, promotions, departures: October 15, 2024 update

Register for November’s 2024 Lexpert Rising Star Awards

Billion-dollar deals, including Couche-Tard’s new higher buyout offer, top this week’s roundup

SCC takes flexible approach to corporate attribution doctrine in bankruptcy and insolvency cases

Understanding sustainable finance key for attracting global capital to Canada: Dentons partner

Supreme Court of Canada to hear three first degree murder cases next week

Most Read Articles

Ontario Superior Court refuses to remove estate trustees despite breach of fiduciary duties

Ontario Superior Court voids financial transfers for failing to rebut presumption of resulting trust

Legal industry managers expect pay for lawyers, other industry professionals to rise: report

Alberta Court of King’s Bench dismisses habeas corpus application in child custody dispute