Hygaard v. Gailiunas, (1997) 202 A.R. 161 (QB)

• Judge: Binder, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: May 21, 1997
• Citations: (1997), 202 A.R. 161 (QB)

Hygaard v. Gailiunas (1997), 202 A.R. 161 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1997] A.R. TBEd. MY.062

Kathy Patricia Hygaard (plaintiff) v. Dr. Vytautas R. Gailiunas (defendant)

(Action No. 9303-08926)

Indexed As: Hygaard v. Gailiunas

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Binder, J.

May 21, 1997.

Summary:

The plaintiff sued the defendant doctor for negligence. The defendant took the position that he was not negligent and that the action was barred by s. 55 of the Limitation Act.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the discoverability rule applied and the action was not statute barred. The court held that the defendant was not negligent.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 15

General principles - Discoverability rule - Application of - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a cause of action arose for the purposes of a limitation period when the material facts on which it was based had been discovered or ought to have been discovered by the plaintiff by the exercise of due diligence (the discov­erability rule) - Section 55 of the Limita­tion Act stated that an action against a physician for negligence or malpractice had to be begun within one year of the date of termination of services - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the discoverability rule applied to s. 55 - See paragraphs 110 to 117.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 3103

Actions in tort - Negligence - When time begins to run - [See Limitation of Actions - Topic 15 ].

Limitation of Actions - Topic 3268

Actions in tort - For professional services - Termination of services - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench set out principles applicable when determining the date that a physician's services terminated - See paragraph 106.

Medicine - Topic 4242

Liability of practitioners - Negligence or fault - Standard of care - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench summarized the principles applicable to the standard of care and duty of physicians with special training - See paragraph 121.

Medicine - Topic 4250

Liability of practitioners - Negligence or fault - Failure to diagnose an illness - [See Medicine - Topic 4252.2 ].

Medicine - Topic 4252.2

Liability of practitioners - Negligence or fault - Obstetrical or gynaecological care - The plaintiff experienced chronic pain in her lower abdomen area and down her front and back upper legs (the condition) - The defendant removed the plaintiff's right fallopian tube and ovary in June 1990 and her left fallopian tube and ovary as well as her uterus and cervix, in January 1991 - The plaintiff's condition was not alleviated - The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was negligent in treating her for a pelvic inflammatory disease when he knew or should have known that she was suffering from a urinary tract problem, in failing to obtain her medical records and in failing to treat her conservatively - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the defendant did not breach the standard of care required of him.

Medicine - Topic 4260

Liability of practitioners - Negligence or fault - Defences - Approved practice - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "As a general rule, where a doctor acts in accordance with a recognized and respectable practise of the profession, he or she will not be found negligent, that is - when a procedure involves difficult or uncertain questions of medical treatment or complex, scientific or highly technical matters that are beyond the ordinary experience and understanding of a judge or jury it will not be open to find a standard medical practise negligent. ... An exception to the general rule, is where a standard practise fails to adopt obvious and reason­able precautions which are readily apparent to the ordinary finder of fact - for example, a sponge or an instrument left in a patient's body following an operation; in such a case it is no excuse for a practi­tioner to claim that he or she was merely conforming to such a negligent common practise." - See paragraph 121.

Medicine - Topic 4324

Liability of practitioners - Bars to actions - Limitation periods - [See Limitation of Actions - Topic 15 and Limitation of Actions - Topic 3268 ].

Torts - Topic 35

Negligence - Standard of care - Medical doctors - [See Medicine - Topic 4242 and Medicine - Topic 4260 ].

Cases Noticed:

Central Trust Co. v. Rafuse and Cordon, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 147; 69 N.R. 321; 75 N.S.R.(2d) 109; 186 A.P.R. 109; 37 C.C.L.T. 117; 42 R.P.R. 161; 31 D.L.R.(4th) 481; 34 B.L.R. 187, appld. [para. 17, Appendix IV].

Peixeiro v. Haberman (1995), 85 O.A.C. 2; 25 O.R.(3d) 1 (C.A.), affd. [1997] S.C.J. No. 31 consd. [para. 101, Appendix IV].

Sobon v. Kosloski and Ivanovski (1986), 46 Sask.R. 172 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 105, Appendix IV].

Fishman v. Waters (1983), 4 D.L.R.(4th) 760 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 105, Appendix IV].

Gloning and Gloning v. Miller (1953), 10 W.W.R.(N.S.) 414 (Alta. T.D.), refd to. [para. 106, Appendix IV].

Parker et al. v. Doig et al., [1989] 2 W.W.R. 654; 72 Sask.R. 271 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 106, Appendix IV].

Rolof v. Morris (1990), 109 A.R. 128 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 106, Appendix IV].

Bullen v. Hershfield, [1992] A.J. No. 1212 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 106, Appendix IV].

Nielsen v. Kamloops (City) and Hughes, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 2; 54 N.R. 1; [1984] 5 W.W.R. 1; 10 D.L.R.(4th) 641; 29 C.C.L.T. 97; 8 C.L.R. 1, appld. [para. 110, Appendix IV].

Fehr v. Jacob and Bethel Hospital (1993), 85 Man.R.(2d) 63; 41 W.A.C. 63; 14 C.C.L.T.(2d) 200 (C.A.), not folld. [para. 112, Appendix IV].

Scott v. Birdsell et al. (1993), 143 A.R. 254 (Q.B.), not folld. [para. 112, Appen­dix IV].

Langenhahn v. Czyz, [1996] A.J. No. 196 (Q.B.), folld. [para. 113, Appendix IV].

Kelly v. Lundgard et al. (1996), 189 A.R. 34 (Q.B.), folld. [para. 113, Appendix IV].

Desormeau v. Holy Family Hospital, Prince Albert, [1989] 5 W.W.R. 186; 76 Sask.R. 241 (C.A.), folld. [para. 113, Appendix IV].

Brown et al. v. University of Alberta Hos­pital et al. (1997), 197 A.R. 237 (Q.B.), folld. [para. 113, Appendix IV].

Reibl v. Hughes, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 880; 33 N.R. 361; 114 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [Appendix IV].

Lepp v. Hopp (1980), 32 N.R. 145; 22 A.R. 361; 112 D.L.R.(3d) 67 (S.C.C.), refd to. [Appendix IV].

Coughlin v. Kuntz, [1990] 2 W.W.R. 737 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [Appendix IV].

Schanczl v. Singh, [1988] 2 W.W.R. 465 (Alta. Q.B.), refd to. [Appendix IV].

Zimmer and Zimmer v. Ringrose (1981), 28 A.R. 69; 124 D.L.R.(3d) 215 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix IV].

Bohus v. Williams (1996), 183 A.R. 165 (Q.B.), refd to. [Appendix IV].

Joyal v. Starreveld (1996), 180 A.R. 141 (Q.B.), refd to. [Appendix IV].

Tailleur et al. v. Grande Prairie General and Auxiliary Hospital and Nursing Home District No. 14 et al. (1996), 179 A.R. 18 (Q.B.), refd to. [Appendix IV].

Zawada v. O'Kelly (1995), 179 A.R. 1 (Q.B.), refd to. [Appendix IV].

Haughian v. Paine (1987), 55 Sask.R. 99; 37 D.L.R.(4th) 624 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix IV].

Bergen Estate v. Sturgeon General Hospi­tal et al. (1984), 63 A.R. 62 (Q.B.), refd to. [Appendix IV].

Dale v. Munthali (1977), 78 D.L.R.(3d) 588 (Ont. H.C.), affd. (1978), 90 D.L.R.(3d) 763 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [Appendix IV].

Lankenau v. Dutton (1985), 2 C.P.C.(2d) 61 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [Appendix IV].

Vancouver General Hospital v. Fraser Estate, [1952] 2 S.C.R. 36, refd to. [Appendix IV].

Lewis v. Joutsi, [1995] O.J. No. 2076 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [Appendix IV].

Brown et al. v. University of Alberta Hos­pital et al. (1995), 172 A.R. 221 (Q.B.), refd to. [Appendix IV].

Campbell v. Fang and Steinhauer (1993), 146 A.R. 238 (Q.B.), refd to. [Appendix IV].

Bank of British Columbia v. Shank Investments Ltd., Mercier and Saunders, [1985] 1 W.W.R. 730; 59 A.R. 244 (Q.B.), refd to. [Appendix IV].

Agate v. Burrows, [1988] B.C.J. No. 586 (S.C.), refd to. [Appendix IV].

Cardin v. Montreal (City) (1961), 29 D.L.R.(2d) 492 (S.C.C.), refd to. [Appendix IV].

Goodwin v. Brady (1991), 7 C.C.L.T.(2d) 319 (B.C.S.C.), affd. (1994), 41 B.C.A.C. 147; 66 W.A.C. 147; 89 B.C.L.R.(2d) 27 (C.A.), refd to. [Appen­dix IV].

Brown v. McNeill, [1989] B.C.J. No. 75 (S.C.), refd to. [Appendix IV].

McIntyre v. Health Sciences Centre et al. (1997), 115 Man.R.(2d) 175; 139 W.A.C. 175 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix IV].

Bucknam v. Kostuik (1983), 3 D.L.R.(4th) 99 (Ont. H.C.), affd. (1986), 55 O.R.(2d) 187 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix IV].

Bonnell v. Moddel, [1987] O.J. No. 97 (H.C.), refd to. [Appendix IV].

Overseas Investments (1986) Ltd. v. Cornwall Developments Ltd. et al. (1995), 179 A.R. 155; 36 Alta. L.R.(3d) 53 (Q.B.), refd to. [Appendix IV].

Gill v. Hicks, [1989] B.C.J. No. 1977 (S.C.), refd to. [Appendix IV].

Diack v. Bardsley (1983), 25 C.C.L.T. 159 (B.C.S.C.), affd. (1984), 31 C.C.L.T. 308 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [Appendix IV].

Faryna v. Chorny (1951), 4 W.W.R.(N.S.) 171 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [Appendix IV].

Leadbetter and Leadbetter v. Brand and MacLellan (1980), 37 N.S.R.(2d) 581; 67 A.P.R. 581 (T.D.), refd to. [Appendix IV].

Friedsam et al. v. Ng (1993), 35 B.C.A.C. 228; 57 W.A.C. 228; 86 B.C.L.R.(2d) 335 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix IV].

Brushett v. Cowan and Casson (1987), 64 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 262; 197 A.P.R. 262; 40 D.L.R.(4th) 488 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [Appendix IV].

Méthot v. Montreal Transportation Com­mission, [1972] S.C.R. 387, refd to. [Appendix IV].

Belknap v. Meakes (1989), 64 D.L.R.(4th) 452 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [Appendix IV].

Campbell v. Sorbara, [1988] O.J. No. 1600 (Dist. Ct.), refd to. [Appendix IV].

Brennan v. Alexis, [1987] O.J. No. 123 (C.A.), affing. in part (1984), 28 A.C.W.S.(2d) 354 (Ont. S.C.), refd to. [Appendix IV].

Augustine v. Lopes, [1994] O.J. No. 2646 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [Appendix IV].

Perrie v. Martin, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 41; 64 N.R. 195; 12 O.A.C. 269, refd to. [Appendix IV].

Von Cramm v. Riverside Hospital, Andres and Wills (1986), 17 O.A.C. 218; 32 D.L.R.(4th) 314 (C.A.)raf, refd to. [Ap­pen­dix IV].

Freeman v. Lavoie et al. (1989), 95 A.R. 66 (Q.B.), refd to. [Appendix IV].

Singleton v. Zuege (1991), 116 A.R. 297; 79 Alta. L.R.(2d) 341 (Q.B.), refd to. [Appendix IV].

Ronex Properties Ltd. v. Laing (John) Construction Ltd., [1982] 3 W.L.R. 875 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix IV].

Hunter v. Peavoy (1985), 62 A.R. 251 (Q.B.), refd to. [Appendix IV].

Rose v. Dujon et al. (1990), 108 A.R. 352 (Q.B.), refd to. [Appendix IV].

Neuzen v. Korn, [1995] 10 W.W.R. 1; 188 N.R. 161; 64 B.C.A.C. 241; 105 W.A.C. 241 (S.C.C.), refd to. [Appendix IV].

ter Neuzen v. Korn - see Neuzen v. Korn.

Tiesmaki v. Wilson, [1974] 4 W.W.R. 19 (Alta. T.D.), affd. [1975] 6 W.W.R. 639 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [Appendix IV].

Kehler v. Myles and Foothills Provincial General Hospital (1986), 74 A.R. 259 (Q.B.), refd to. [Appendix IV].

Snell v. Farrell, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 311; 110 N.R. 200; 107 N.B.R.(2d) 94; 267 A.P.R. 94; 72 D.L.R.(4th) 289; 4 C.C.L.T.(2d) 229, refd to. [Appendix IV].

Couillard and Labutis v. Waschulewski Estate (1988), 87 A.R. 161; 59 Alta. L.R.(2d) 62 (Q.B.), refd to. [Appendix IV].

Athey v. Leonati et al. (1996), 203 N.R. 36; 81 B.C.A.C. 243; 132 W.A.C. 243 (S.C.C.), refd to. [Appendix IV].

Statutes Noticed:

Limitation of Actions Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. L-15, sect. 55 [para. 103].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Cudmore, Civil Evidence Handbook, gen­erally [Appendix IV].

Gifford, Gifford and Jeffery, How to Understand Statutes and Bylaws (1996), generally [Appendix IV].

Phipson, The Law of Evidence (5th Ed.), pp. 463, 474 [Appendix IV].

Picard, Ellen I., and Robertson, Gerald A., Legal Liability of Doctors and Hospitals in Canada (3rd Ed. 1996), generally [Appendix IV].

Robertson, Gerald, Case Comment, Scott v. Birdsell (1994), 32 Alta. L. Rev. 181, generally [Appendix IV].

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sydney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (1992), generally [Appendix IV].

Counsel:

John A. Weir, Q.C., F. David Cook, and Terri S. Mann (Weir Bowen), for the plaintiff;

Rose M. Carter and Tracey L. Howell (Bennett Jones Verchere), for the defen­dant.

This action was heard by Binder, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on May 21, 1997.