APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL DISMISSED
Gestion Christian Patron Inc., Christian Patron v. Royal Bank of Canada (Que.)
Civil procedure - Case management
The applicants filed a motion to be relieved from their failure to file the inscription for proof and hearing within the allotted time. They alleged that their counsel had mistakenly believed that such an inscription was not necessary following the joinder of their file with a file in another judicial district. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
Melanie Ann Dale v. Cathy Sheila Frank - and between - Rachel Gladkowski v. Cathy Sheila Frank and John Alexander McKenzie - and between - Diane Lesak v. Cathy Sheila Frank and John Alexander McKenzie - and between - Patricia Pettit v. Cathy Sheila Frank and John Alexander McKenzie - and between - Lidija Poff v. Cathy Sheila Frank(Ont.)
Limitation of actions - Discoverability - Summary judgment
The respondent, Dr. Cathy Sheila Frank, is an obstetrician and gynecologist practising at St. Thomas Elgin General Hospital. Between 2005 and 2007, she performed surgical procedures on the applicants. The respondent, Dr. John Alexander McKenzie, was assisting Dr. Frank in the operating room in some of these procedures. After the procedures, each applicant experienced a range of unexpected symptoms which required either unplanned corrective surgery or prolonged hospitalization. In November 2011, the law firm representing the applicants issued a press release indicating that Dr. Frank and related respondents were being sued for medical negligence and that a complaint had been filed with the College of Physicians and Surgeons. Although the applicants were not involved in the lawsuits referred to in the press release, they became aware of their potential claims through the media coverage. Between September 2012 and August 2013, they commenced their own actions against the respondents for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. Consequently, the respondents brought a motion for summary judgment against each action as a result of the expiration of the limitation period as prescribed in the Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. c. 24, Sch. B, Section 5. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals