Duhamel et al. v. Matic et al., 2000 ABQB 189

• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: March 15, 2000
• Citations: 2000 ABQB 189;(2000), 262 A.R. 109 (QBM)

Duhamel v. Matic (2000), 262 A.R. 109 (QBM)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] A.R. TBEd. AP.083

Gladys Duhamel and Janice Armstrong (plaintiffs) v. Dr. Matic, Dr. Neal, Dr. Liu, Dr. Sia, Dr. Thomson, Dr. Karolak, Dr. Singh, Dr. Hamilton, Dr. Leung, Dr. Brian Johnson, Dr. Chatenay, Dr. Azmayesh-Ford, Dr. Meier, Dr. MacArthur, Dr. Muzyka, Dr. Millear, Dr. Marcushamer, Dr. McNamee, Dr. Wang, Dr. Lack, Dr. Zbdawi, Dr. Heule, Dr. Fuller, Dr. Burton, Dr. Al-Sheha, Capital Health Authority, University of Alberta Hospital, Jack Roe and John Doe (defendants)

(Action No. 9803-12954; 2000 ABQB 189)

Indexed As: Duhamel et al. v. Matic et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Funduk, Master in Chambers

March 29, 2000.

Summary:

Duhamel commenced a medical negligence lawsuit against the defendants on July 30, 1998, with respect to medical services pro­vided to her. Duhamel died a month later. Her sister, Armstrong, decided to advance a claim under the Fatal Accidents Act. On July 27, 1999, an ex parte order was granted renewing the statement of claim issued by Duhamel for three months and allowing it to be amended by adding Armstrong as a co-plaintiff and adding a claim under the Fatal Accidents Act. The defendant doctors applied to set aside the order. Armstrong counter-applied for an order that the amended statement of claim was in force for one year from the date of the amendment.

A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench ordered that the amended statement of claim would remain solely as a lawsuit by Armstrong under the Fatal Accidents Act and would be effective as of July 27, 1999, and would not be retroactive to the date of the initial pleading. Duhamel would be deleted as a co-plaintiff.

Practice - Topic 50

Actions - Commencement of - Continu­ation of action v. separate action - [See Prac­tice - Topic 2154 ].

Practice - Topic 651

Parties - Adding or substituting parties - Adding or substituting plaintiffs - Circum­stances when allowed - [See Prac­tice - Topic 2154 ].

Practice - Topic 2110

Pleadings - Amendment of pleadings - Adding new cause of action - [See Prac­tice - Topic 2154 ].

Practice - Topic 2154

Pleadings - Amendment of pleadings - When amendment takes effect - Duhamel commenced a medical negligence lawsuit against the defendants on July 30, 1998, with respect to medical services provided to her - Duhamel died a month later - Her sister, Armstrong, decided to advance a claim under the Fatal Accidents Act - On July 27, 1999, an ex parte order was granted renewing the statement of claim issued by Duhamel for three months and allowing it to be amended by adding Armstrong as a co-plaintiff and adding a claim under the Fatal Accidents Act - The defendant doctors applied to set aside the order - Armstrong counter-applied for an order that the amended statement of claim was in force for one year from the date of the amendment - A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench ordered that the amended statement of claim would remain soley as a lawsuit by Armstrong under the Fatal Accidents Act and would be effective as of July 27, 1999, and would not be retroactive to the date of the initial plead­ing - Duhamel would be deleted as a co-plaintiff.

Cases Noticed:

Hodge v. Carey Industrial Services Ltd. et al. (1997), 202 A.R. 154; 50 Alta. L.R.(3d) 306 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 19].

First Investors Corp. et al. v. Regional Investments Ltd. and Pawluk et al. (1985), 58 Alta. L.R.(2d) 159 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

ESM Transport Ltd. v. Western Mack Truck (Edmonton) Ltd. et al. (1988), 90 A.R. 321; 59 Alta. L.R.(2d) 225 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Wil-Ton Construction Ltd. v. Amerada Minerals Corp. of Canada Ltd. et al. (1989), 98 A.R. 296 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Oberg v. Foothills Provincial General Hospital et al. (1999), 232 A.R. 263; 195 W.A.C. 263 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

O'Neill v. Dimmick Estate (1994), 149 A.R. 47; 63 W.A.C. 47 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Armstrong v. Bell Helicopter Textron Inc., [1994] A.J. No. 783 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

Nagy v. Phillips et al. (1996), 187 A.R. 97; 127 W.A.C. 97; 41 Alta. L.R.(3d) 58 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Myskiw v. Wynn et al. (1977), 4 A.R. 464; 3 Alta. L.R.(2d) 231 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Hall v. Hall (1958), 15 D.L.R.(2d) 638 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 42].

Miller v. Canadian Pacific Railway, [1933] 1 W.W.R. 233 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

K.F.L. Holdings Ltd. v. Stewart (William) Properties Ltd. et al. (1982), 44 A.R. 200 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 44].

Canada Southern Petroleum Ltd. v. Amoco Canada Petroleum Co. (1998), 221 A.R. 364; 62 Alta. L.R.(3d) 31 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 45].

Korte et al. v. Cormie et al. (1996), 178 A.R. 199; 110 W.A.C. 199; 36 Alta. L.R.(3d) 431 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

Madill v. Alexander Consulting Group Ltd. et al. (1999), 237 A.R. 307; 197 W.A.C. 307 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

Austin v. Hart, [1983] 2 C.A. 640, refd to. [para. 51].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Stevenson, W.A., and Côté, J.E., Alberta Civil Procedure Handbook (1999), p. 94 [para. 35].

Stevenson, W.A., and Côté, J.E., Civil Procedure Guide (1996), vol. 1 [para. 46], p. 403 [para. 53].

Counsel:

Frieser Robinson, for Armstrong;

D.M. Hawreluk (Bennett Jones), for the defendant doctors.

This application was heard on March 15, 2000, before Funduk, Master, of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following decision on March 29, 2000.