Court stressed the necessity of detailed factual pleadings to support negligence claims
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled on a negligence case involving two psychiatrists, finding they did not owe a duty of care to third parties harmed by their patient's actions but allowed the plaintiff to amend the claim with more specific details.
On February 11, 2019, Bradley McKee stabbed his father, William, to death in their family home in Penetanguishene, Ontario. Bradley was convicted of first-degree murder in November 2022. His mother, Anna McKee, subsequently filed a lawsuit against two psychiatrists who treated Bradley before the murder, seeking $1.5 million in damages for alleged negligence.
Anna McKee claimed that the psychiatrists owed a duty of care to her and her late husband to provide competent medical care to Bradley and to warn them of the significant risk he posed. The defendants moved to strike the claim, arguing that Canadian tort law does not recognize such duties of care and that the claim lacked sufficient factual detail.
The Superior Court addressed three main issues. First, regarding the duty of care in treatment, the court found it plain and obvious that the psychiatrists did not owe a duty of care to Anna and William to avoid harm through Bradley's negligent care. He emphasized that while physicians owe a duty of care to their patients, extending this duty to non-patient third parties could create significant conflicts of interest.
Second, on the duty to warn, the court did not find it plain and obvious that the psychiatrists did not owe a duty to warn Anna and William of the danger Bradley posed. Justice Edwards noted that it was reasonably foreseeable that failing to warn could result in harm. However, the court found that the plaintiff's claim lacked sufficient factual detail to support the alleged duty to warn and granted leave to re-plead this aspect of the claim.
Third, regarding the adequacy of the pleadings, the court struck the plaintiff's claim due to insufficient particularity, allowing Anna McKee to amend and refile her claim with more detailed allegations regarding the psychiatrists' awareness of specific threats posed by Bradley.
Ultimately, the court’s ruling underscored the necessity of detailed factual pleadings to support negligence claims and the importance of considering potential conflicts of interest in extending duties of care beyond the patient.
