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