Court finds allegations relied on incorrect interpretations of documents
The British Columbia Court of Appeal has upheld a decision striking fraud and forgery claims against the Fraser Health Authority and one of its employees.
In Phongpradith v Bieberstein, 2026 BCCA 388, the court found the pleaded facts rested on incorrect interpretations of documents and “were manifestly incapable of being proven.” It upheld the chambers judge’s decision to strike the amended claim without leave to amend under Rule 9-5(1)(a) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules.
The appellant’s father died in September 2024 after suffering a catastrophic head injury in a fall. The appellant subsequently sought copies of his health records from Surrey Memorial Hospital, where he initially received treatment.
Fraser Health Authority (FHA) operates the hospital, but Health Information Management (HIM), a department of another health authority, manages its health records. HIM denied the appellant’s requests after determining they did not meet the statutory criteria for disclosure.
The appellant later commenced an action against FHA and one of its employees who responded to her requests for records and compensation.
After an earlier opportunity to amend her pleadings, the appellant filed an amended claim seeking $3 million as well as aggravated and punitive damages. She alleged forgery and fraud under the Criminal Code, asserting that the employee had submitted a forged denial letter and false affidavit in an attempt to cover up the circumstances of her father’s death and avoid legal responsibility.
A BC Supreme Court judge struck the amended claim in March 2026, finding it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.
On appeal, the appellant argued that the respondents lacked standing because they had not filed an amended response to her amended claim. The Court of Appeal rejected that argument, finding Rule 6-1 permits, but does not require, a party to amend its responding pleading.
The court also rejected the appellant’s argument that the chambers judge made orders without a proper notice of application. The respondents had filed a notice of application and later used a requisition to reset their hearing date, as permitted by the Civil Rules.
The central issue concerned the chambers judge’s analysis under Rule 9-5(1)(a). Under that rule, a claim will be struck if it is plain and obvious that it has no reasonable prospect of success. Pleaded facts are generally assumed to be true unless they are manifestly incapable of being proven.
The Court of Appeal found the chambers judge could consider four documents expressly incorporated into the pleadings because the appellant based her allegations on interpretations of those documents.
The court agreed that the documents did not support the alleged contradictions on which the fraud and forgery claims depended. It found the amended claim contained no pleadings capable of supporting the fraud and forgery claims or a civil fraud claim.
The court concluded the amended claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and found no basis for appellate intervention. It dismissed the appeal.
