Forget v. Sutherland, (2000) 134 O.A.C. 117 (CA)

• Judge: Osborne, A.C.J.O., Laskin and Borins, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: July 05, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2000), 134 O.A.C. 117 (CA);2000 CanLII 5761 (ON CA);188 DLR (4th) 296;[2000] OJ No 2522 (QL);134 OAC 117;44 CPC (4th) 193;98 ACWS (3d) 59

Forget v. Sutherland (2000), 134 O.A.C. 117 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] O.A.C. TBEd. JL.004

Murielle Forget (plaintiff/respondent) v. Dr. Norman Sutherland (defendant/appellant)

(C32601)

Indexed As: Forget v. Sutherland

Ontario Court of Appeal

Osborne, A.C.J.O., Laskin and Borins, JJ.A.

July 5, 2000.

Summary:

Forget sued her doctor for damages for sexual assault. Forget also filed a complaint with the College of Physicians and Surgeons. The civil action was settled, with the doctor providing security for the agreed damages. At the same time, Forget swore a statement recanting the allegations of sexual assault. The doctor failed to pay the final instalment of the settlement. Forget sued. The statement of defence alleged that the complaint was fraudulent, relying on the recantation. Forget applied to strike the allegations on the ground that s. 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act made any document pre­pared for a professional discipline proceed­ing against a doctor inadmissible in a civil action. The motions judge held that s. 36(3) applied and struck the allegation in the statement of defence. The doctor appealed.

The Ontario Divisional Court, in a judg­ment reported 122 O.A.C. 317, dismissed the appeal. The doctor appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, Borins, J.A., dissenting, dismissed the appeal. The state­ment recanting the sexual assault allegation was inadmissible in a civil action.

Medicine - Topic 2118.2

Discipline for professional misconduct - Evidence - Use in civil proceedings - Forget sued her doctor for damages for sexual assault - Forget also filed a com­plaint with the College of Physicians and Surgeons - The civil action was settled, with the doctor providing security for the agreed damages - At the same time, Forget swore a statement recanting the allegations of sexual assault - The doctor failed to pay the final settlement payment - Forget sued - The statement of defence alleged fraud, relying on the recantation - Forget applied to strike the fraud allegation on the ground that s. 36(3) of the Regulated Health Pro­fessions Act made any document prepared for a professional discipline proceeding against a doctor (including the statement recanting the sexual assault allegation) inadmissible in a civil action - The Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed that the recanta­tion statement was inadmissible in the civil action - It was prepared for the disciplinary proceeding and s. 36(3) absolutely ex­cluded admission, even where fraud or bad faith were alleged.

Practice - Topic 2233

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Privilege or immunity - [See Medicine - Topic 2118.2 ].

Cases Noticed:

J.L.B. v. E.J.B. (1997), 13 C.P.C.(4th) 206 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 30].

Macartney et al. v. Warner (2000), 129 O.A.C. 96 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28, footnote 6].

Winnipeg (City) v. Morguard Properties Ltd. et al. (1983), 50 N.R. 264; 25 Man.R.(2d) 302; 3 D.L.R.(4th) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 35, footnote 9].

Roman Corp. v. Hudson's Bay Oil & Gas Co., [1972] 1 O.R. 444 (C.A.), affd. [1973] S.C.R. 820, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Calder (M.) (1996), 194 N.R. 321; 90 O.A.C. 18; 105 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 46].

Montreal Trust Co. of Canada v. Toronto-Dominion Bank (1992), 40 C.P.C.(3d) 389 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 58].

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 64].

Duryea v. Kaufman (1910), 21 O.L.R. 161, refd to. [para. 71].

Redmond v. Stacey (1917), 13 O.W.N. 79, affd. 13 O.W.N. 179 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 75].

Millington v. Loring (1880), 6 Q.B.D. 190 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 75].

Brydon v. Brydon, [1951] O.W.N. 369 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 76].

Air India Disaster Claimants v. Air India (1987), 62 O.R.(2d) 130 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 77].

Sentinel-Review Co. v. Robinson (1926), 60 O.L.R. 93 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 81].

Godman v. Times Publishing Co., [1926] 2 K.B. 273 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 83].

R. v. Mills (B.J.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668; 248 N.R. 101; 244 A.R. 201; 209 W.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 89].

A.M. v. Ryan, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 157; 207 N.R. 81; 85 B.C.A.C. 81; 138 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 89].

Statutes Noticed:

Regulated Health Professions Act, S.O. 1991, c. 18, sect. 36(3) [paras. 17, 60].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Driedger, Elmer A., The Construction of Statutes (3rd Ed. 1994), p. 7 [para. 28, footnote 6].

Holmested and Watson, Ontario Civil Procedure (1993), vol. 2, rule 25, s. 18 [para. 43, footnote 10].

Ontario, Health Professions Legislation Review, Striking a New Balance: A Blueprint for the Regulation of Ontario's Health Professions (1989), p. 102 [para. 34, footnote 8].

Schwartz Report - see Ontario, Health Professions Legislation Review, Striking a New Balance: A Blueprint for the Regulation of Ontario's Health Profes­sions.

Counsel:

R. Manes and D. Embury, for the appel­lant;

S. Vella and J. Eades, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on February 1, 2000, before Osborne, A.C.J.O., Laskin and Borins, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Ap­peal.

On July 5, 2000, the judgment of the Court of Appeal was released and the following opinions were filed:

Laskin, J.A. (Osborne, A.C.J.O., concur­ring) - see paragraphs 1 to 47;

Borins, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 48 to 90.