He did not understand the litigation process and misrepresented his abilities: court
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that the plaintiff in a medical malpractice case is a party under a disability and appointed the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee (OPGT) as his litigation guardian due to concerns about his capacity to represent himself.
The case centred on Kunal Tipus’s allegations that care provided by several doctors between 2013 and 2017 fell below the expected standard. However, the defendant physicians brought a motion under Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking an order to have Tipu declared under a disability and appoint the OPGT as his guardian due to concerns about his capacity to represent himself in the litigation.
The issue of Tipu’s capacity was first raised in July 2021 when he requested an adjournment, claiming he lacked the capacity to represent himself. Despite multiple case conferences and the involvement of a lawyer, Tipu did not follow through on obtaining a court-ordered capacity assessment. Although Tipu later submitted several reports from different assessors, the court found these insufficient and raised concerns that Tipu manipulated the assessments by withholding information.
The court found evidence that Tipu lacked an understanding of the civil litigation process, misrepresented his abilities, and had unrealistic expectations about his case, including seeking damages of $400 million. Additionally, his communications with the defendants’ counsel, in which he referenced Loblaws stealing from him and foreign objects controlling his actions, further raised concerns about his mental state.
The Superior Court acknowledged that declaring someone under a disability is not a punishment but a protective measure. Based on the evidence, the court found that Tipu’s mental state required the appointment of a litigation guardian to safeguard his interests and prevent harmful decisions.
With no other individual willing to act as his guardian, the court appointed OPGT to fulfill the role. The court concluded that this was necessary to ensure Tipu's proper representation in the ongoing litigation.
