The case involves allegations of negligence against 27 doctors at the Queensway Carleton Hospital
The Ontario Court of Appeal denied a litigant’s request for an extension of time to appeal the dismissal of his medical malpractice case and partial summary judgment request.
In Beazley v. Johnston, 2024 ONCA 430, the plaintiff initiated an action, alleging negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty against 27 doctors and the Queensway Carleton Hospital. He claimed that between December 2015 and May 2018, the doctors failed to diagnose and treat him for Lyme disease, resulting in significant injuries and losses due to the delay.
Central to his allegations were claims that the standard of care required a clinical diagnosis based on symptoms and tick exposure, rather than standard Lyme disease testing, which he asserted was unreliable. He presented a January 2017 positive PCR test from a California lab as evidence of his Lyme disease diagnosis.
The motion judge found that the defendants met their evidentiary burden, establishing no genuine issue requiring a trial. The evidence included a Joint Book of Medical Records, affidavits from the 27 doctors, and seven expert witnesses who confirmed that the defendants met the standard of care. The judge ruled that the plaintiff’s proposed expert was not qualified to give expert evidence, and his evidence was insufficient to establish a genuine issue requiring trial.
The plaintiff did not file an affidavit responsive to the defendants’ affidavits, which contributed to the judge’s conclusion that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial. The judge dismissed the plaintiff’s claims and motion for partial summary judgment on liability.
The Court of Appeal applied the well-established test for granting an extension of time, considering factors such as the plaintiff’s intention to appeal within the appeal period, the length and explanation for the delay, any prejudice to the defendants, and the merits of the proposed appeal.
The court found that while the plaintiff intended to appeal within the appeal period, his explanation for the delay—confusion about the finality of the motion judge’s decision and procedural misunderstandings—was not entirely reasonable given his experience with litigation. Nonetheless, the court deemed the delay not unduly lengthy.
The defendants argued that the plaintiff did not meet the necessary criteria for an extension, emphasizing that the motion judge found he lacked expert evidence to support his claims. The hospital took no position on the extension.
The Court of Appeal concluded that the plaintiff’s proposed appeal lacked merit, noting that he failed to demonstrate an arguable ground of appeal. The plaintiff did not provide admissible evidence contradicting the defendants' affidavits, nor did he file an affidavit detailing his version of interactions with the defendants.
Ultimately, the Court of Appeal denied the plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal, concluding that the justice of the case did not support granting the extension due to the proposed appeal's lack of merit.
