The case involves a patient who was treated for chest issue but subsequently died
In a recent decision, the Manitoba Court of King's Bench dismissed a longstanding medical malpractice lawsuit due to inordinate and inexcusable delay in prosecuting the case.
The case revolved around a patient who presented at a hospital in 2006 with chest pain, was treated and released, and subsequently died from a heart attack.
The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in 2008, alleging negligence by the treating physician and the regional health authority. However, the case experienced numerous delays, and it was not scheduled for trial until January 2025, nearly 17 years after the initial incident.
Most Read
The defendants, citing the prolonged delay, argued for a summary judgment to dismiss the case. They referenced Manitoba Court of King's Bench Rules, which stipulate that if three or more years pass without a significant advance in an action, the court must dismiss the case unless certain conditions are met. They also pointed to a 2020 Manitoba Court of Appeal decision emphasizing the court's concern over delays affecting access to justice.
The timeline presented in court detailed extensive periods of inactivity. For instance, between 2009 and 2012, the plaintiffs took no significant steps. Despite multiple requests from the defence for documents and responses to undertakings, the plaintiffs often took years to provide the necessary information.
During the analysis, the court referred to a leading case on delay, which outlines the approach to determining whether a delay is inordinate and inexcusable. The Manitoba Court of King’s Bench found that the delay in this case was excessive and that the plaintiffs had not provided a sufficient explanation.
The plaintiffs argued that the delay was partly due to complications in the patient's estate and the case's complexity. However, the court noted that by 2011, the estate issues were resolved, but the plaintiffs still took several years to produce the necessary expert reports.
The court concluded that the delay was inordinate and inexcusable and resulted in significant prejudice to the defendants. The prolonged period likely affected the witnesses' ability to recall events accurately and hampered the defence's ability to prepare for trial.
As a result, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the action for delay, granting the defendants' motions.
