Plaintiff's counsel took personal responsibility for slow progression of litigation, ruling notes
The British Columbia Supreme Court found it in the interests of justice for civil claims alleging defamation, negligent investigation, and breaches of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms against multiple defendants, including two doctors, to move forward despite lengthy delays.
In Dawson v Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (Vancouver General Hospital), 2025 BCSC 862, the plaintiff alleged that somebody reported her to the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) for being suicidal and a possible threat to herself and others in October 2015. The plaintiff alleged the events that occurred that day.
The VPD broke into the plaintiff’s apartment to search for her, eventually apprehended her on a bus, and brought her to Vancouver General Hospital under s. 28 of BC’s Mental Health Act, 1996, which stated that police could apprehend and immediately take someone to a physician or nurse practitioner for examination if the person’s actions would likely endanger themself or others.
After arriving at the hospital in the afternoon, the VPD and the hospital security guarded her. The people handling her – including police, nurses, and doctors – stripped her, restrained her, denied her food and phone access, and only gave her a few sips of water.
A doctor certified the plaintiff and allowed the hospital to admit her involuntarily under s. 22 of the Mental Health Act. A psychiatrist assessed her and found she was not certifiable. After a second psychiatrist interviewed her, the hospital discharged her that night.
In October 2017, the plaintiff filed a civil action against the VPD, the person who phoned the police, the City of Vancouver, the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, the hospital, and specific medical professionals who saw her there.
The plaintiff argued that the defendants took these actions although she required a walker and was elderly, diminutive, and cooperative the entire time.
The defendants applied to dismiss the plaintiff’s action for failure to prosecute under r. 22-7(7) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, BC Reg 168/2009 (SCCR), or failure to comply with the case plan order under rr. 5-3(6) and 22-7(7)(d) of the SCCR.
The Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed the defendants’ applications, awarded the plaintiff costs, and set a schedule for the process that would follow. The court refused to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim for failure to comply with the case plan order.
The court addressed the considerations relevant to an application to dismiss for want of prosecution, provided in the case of Giacomini Consulting Canada Inc. v. The Owners, Strata Plan EPS 3173, 2023 BCCA 473.
First, the court found the delay in this action clearly inordinate and lengthy, given the years that have passed since the action’s filing. The court said it did not condone this length of time or consider it normal for this type of litigation.
Second, the court deemed the delay excusable. The court noted that the plaintiff’s lawyer took personal responsibility for the slow progression of the litigation. The court listed the reasons allegedly leading to the delay:
The court found it unreasonable to expect the plaintiff to dismiss her counsel in the circumstances. Specifically, the court noted that the plaintiff was elderly and impecunious, had trouble retaining a lawyer from the start, and would find it challenging to switch counsel at this point.
The court did not consider the delays intentional or tactical. The court accepted that the plaintiff’s side tried frequently but ineffectually to move the litigation along. The court concluded that the defendants’ counsel could not have assumed that the plaintiff was abandoning her case.
Third, the court considered whether it would be in the interests of justice for the case to move forward if it was wrong to deem the delay excusable. The court said it would indeed be in the interests of justice. The court saw no reason the case could not proceed to trial next year, given its current stage of preparation.
Regarding the merits, the court noted that the plaintiff gave an affidavit verifying the allegations in her notice of civil claim regarding her actions and treatment on the day of the incident. The court acknowledged that the claims appeared to have merit and to engage considerable public interest, assuming her allegations were factual.
