Ontario Court of Appeal denies bid to revive Lyme disease medical malpractice case

The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the refusal to grant an extension of time to appeal the dismissal of a medical malpractice case.

In November 2015, the plaintiff, Cary Beazley, began having flu-like symptoms and rashes after being bitten by two ticks. He consulted many physicians over the next year as his condition worsened.  Finally, in January 2017, he was diagnosed with Lyme disease.  Beazley alleged that the physicians failed to diagnose his Lyme disease in a timely manner, leading to severe and ongoing injuries. He also claimed the hospital was vicariously liable for the physicians’ actions.

The court dismissed the case in a summary judgment, prompting Beazley to seek an extension of time to appeal. He argued that the motion judge had erred in her evaluation of the appeal’s merits.

The Court of Appeal reviewed whether the motion judge, who dismissed the extension request, had made a legal error or misapprehended material evidence. The appellate panel found no such errors and noted the significant deference given to the motion judge’s discretion. The motion judge had concluded that the appeal was devoid of merit, determining it was not in the interests of justice to grant an extension.

Beazley’s primary arguments focused on alleged errors by the summary motion judge in handling expert evidence. He claimed the judge improperly accepted the respondents’ experts’ opinions, arguing they had inaccurately described Lyme disease testing as 100 percent accurate. The Court of Appeal, however, clarified that the respondents’ experts had emphasized the importance of considering clinical presentations alongside test results, which were not always reliable, particularly in the early stages.

The court also found no issue with the exclusion of Beazley’s expert, who had retired from medicine before the relevant period. Even if the expert’s opinion had been admitted, it would not have altered the outcome, as it relied on a clinical presentation not reflected in the evidentiary record.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge’s conclusion that the proposed appeal lacked merit and was bound to fail. The court dismissed the review motion with no costs awarded. The court emphasized the rigorous standards for granting extensions of time to appeal, particularly when the underlying case lacks substantive merit.