A Métis woman alleged inadequate medical care and improper intervention over a year
The Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed a negligence lawsuit against the Northern Health Authority (NHA) and First Nations Health Authority (FNHA), ruling that the plaintiff's claim failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action.
The court found that the pleadings were unclear, lengthy, and did not establish legal grounds for negligence or other claims.
The plaintiff, a Métis woman from Vanderhoof, BC, filed a civil claim against NHA and FNHA. The claim detailed several events over one year, including allegations of inadequate medical care and improper intervention by FNHA staff.
The FNHA provides virtual healthcare services to First Nations communities with limited access to primary care. On July 28, 2023, FNHA staff initiated a wellness check after a telephone conversation in which the plaintiff appeared to be in distress and suicidal. The RCMP conducted the wellness check and transported the plaintiff to a local hospital, which NHA operates. The plaintiff alleged that FNHA staff acted negligently in requesting police involvement.
The plaintiff also accused NHA medical staff of failing to conduct necessary tests and properly assess her symptoms in December 2022. The claim alleged negligence by three doctors and a nurse, citing failures to perform an early ultrasound, provide stress management advice, treat high prolactin levels, and recognize trauma symptoms. The plaintiff further alleged that hospital staff attempted to administer medication, took urine and blood samples without consent, contacted the RCMP, and restrained her.
Under Rule 9-5(1) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, the court may strike a pleading if it fails to disclose a reasonable cause of action, is frivolous or vexatious, or abuses the court process. The judge found that the plaintiff's claim contained a lengthy narrative of personal experiences but did not provide clear legal grounds for action.
The Supreme Court determined that the claim did not establish material facts necessary to support a negligence claim, including the standard of care, a breach, or resulting harm. The judge ruled that NHA was not legally responsible for the conduct of independent physicians named in the claim and that the FNHA's wellness check request was not negligent, as the plaintiff had disclosed suicidal ideation. The court also found that allegations related to privacy breaches and intentional infliction of mental distress did not meet legal requirements. While the claim referenced the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it did not present a formal constitutional challenge or facts supporting a Charter violation.
The court ruled that the claim was "long, prolix, and unclear" and that it was "plain and obvious" that it could not succeed. As a result, the court struck the claim in its entirety and dismissed the case against both health authorities.
