Kelly v. Lundgard,

• Judge: Fraser, C.J.A., Conrad and Fruman, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2001 ABCA 185
• Citation: (2001), 286 A.R. 1 (CA),2001 ABCA 185,202 DLR (4th) 385,[2001] 9 WWR 399,286 AR 1,95 Alta LR (3d) 11,7 CCLT (3d) 1,[2001] CarswellAlta 1072,[2001] AJ No 906 (QL),253 WAC 1,[2001] A.J. No 906 (QL),253 W.A.C. 1,286 A.R. 1,202 D.L.R. (4th) 385,(2001), 286 AR 1 (CA)
• Date: 04 January 1999
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)

Kelly v. Lundgard (2001), 286 A.R. 1 (CA);

    253 W.A.C. 1

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] A.R. TBEd. JL.045

Pacita Kelly (respondent/plaintiff) v. Dr. Karen A.H. Lundgard, Dr. Karen A.H. Lundgard Professional Corporation and Dr. William J. Orrom (appellants/defendants)

(9703-0167-AC; 2001 ABCA 185)

Indexed As: Kelly v. Lundgard et al.

Alberta Court of Appeal

Fraser, C.J.A., Conrad and Fruman, JJ.A.

July 6, 2001.

Summary:

A patient sued two doctors (a family practitioner and a general surgeon), alleging that as a result of their negligent misrepresentations, which did not identify infertility as a possible result of her peritonitis and related surgery, she settled a motor vehicle action for considerably less than she would otherwise have done.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 189 A.R. 34, and in an decision not reported in this series of reports, allowed the action. The doctors appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, Conrad and Fruman, JJ.A., dissenting in part, allowed the surgeon's appeal, dismissed the family practitioner's liability appeal, but allowed his appeal on damages.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 2592.1

Negligence - Particular negligent acts - Obtaining expert reports - The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Conrad and Fruman, JJ.A., discussed the role of lawyers in obtaining medical-legal reports - See paragraphs 166 to 169 and 275 to 282.

Damage Awards - Topic 64

Injury and death - Body injuries - Genitals or reproductive system - A 37 year old plaintiff sued for damages for injuries resulting from a motor vehicle accident - A medical-legal report from the plaintiff's doctor represented the plaintiff's condition as one of full recovery and did not identify the medically accepted risk of infertility - The plaintiff settled her action - The plaintiff subsequently discovered that she was infertile - The Alberta Court of Appeal concluded that the doctor was liable for negligent misrepresentation and that the proper date for assessing damages was the date that an action for damages for infertility against the driver of the motor vehicle might, with due diligence, have been tried or settled - The court assessed damages for infertility at $65,000 using the date at which the suit would have proceeded to trial (late 1994 or early 1995) - The settlement date might be appropriate where there was evidence and a finding that a settlement would have occurred - See paragraphs 35 and 181 to 196.

Damages - Topic 3630

Deceit and misrepresentation - Negligent misrepresentation - [See Damage Awards - Topic 64 ].

Fraud and Misrepresentation - Topic 2508

Misrepresentation - General principles - Negligent misrepresentation - A plaintiff sued for damages for injuries resulting from a motor vehicle accident - A medical-legal report from the plaintiff's doctor represented the plaintiff's condition as one of full recovery and did not identify the medically accepted risk of infertility - The plaintiff settled her action - The plaintiff subsequently discovered that she was infertile - The Alberta Court of Appeal affirmed that the doctor was liable for negligent misrepresentation - The proper standard of disclosure for a doctor expressing an opinion in a medical-legal report was the disclosure that could have been expected of a reasonable and diligent doctor in the same circumstances - The doctor also had a duty to exercise the degree of care which could have reasonably been expected of a prudent and diligent doctor in the same circumstances to ensure that the statements were accurate and not misleading - See paragraphs 8 to 34, 40 to 44, 95 to 165, 250 to 274 and 295.

Fraud and Misrepresentation - Topic 2563

Misrepresentation - Representations - Particular statements - Opinions and estimates - [See Fraud and Misrepresentation - Topic 2508 ].

Limitation of Actions - Topic 15

General principles - Discoverability rule - Application of - A plaintiff sued her family physician and a surgeon, alleging breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation in the preparation of medical-legal reports - Section 55(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act provided a one year limitation period for actions against a physician "for negligence or malpractice by reason of professional services" - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation claims were included in s. 55(1) -Negligent misrepresentation was a tort and a subset of negligence - The important consideration was not the manner in which the claim was framed, but whether the negligence or malpractice related to "professional services" - The provision of the reports constituted "professional services" -Discoverability did not apply, where s. 55(1) expressly stated that the limitation period started when the professional services terminated - The claim against the surgeon was barred by s. 55(1) - However, the claim against the family physician was not barred where the plaintiff's consultations with her for infertility had extended the limitation period - See paragraphs 1 to 7 and 343 to 374.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 3270

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

Limitation of Actions - Topic 9305

Postponement or suspension of statute - General - Discoverability rule - [See Limitation of Actions - Topic 15 ].

Medicine - Topic 3082

Relation with patient - Charts, records, opinions and reports - Standard of care - [See Fraud and Misrepresentation - Topic 2508 ].

Medicine - Topic 3082

Relation with patient - Charts, records, opinions and reports - Standard of care - The Alberta Court of Appeal stated that "[t]he applicable standard of care in negligent misrepresentation cases is the duty to exercise such reasonable care as the circumstances require to ensure that the representations made are accurate and not misleading. In the case of a medical-legal opinion about prognosis, the appropriate standard is the disclosure that could be expected of a reasonable and diligent doctor in the same circumstances. This is fact dependent and will be based on the specific questions asked by the lawyer. The analysis generally will require: 1. an evaluation of the probability that the patient would develop the missed condition, and an interpretation of the precise questions posed by the lawyer, to determine whether a proper response required disclosure of the condition. For example, assuming the lawyer's questions would elicit information about conditions compensable in damages, the analysis would require a determination whether, at the time the opinion was given, development of the condition was a real and substantial possibility, and not merely speculative; 2. an objective assessment of the investigations and response which a reasonable and prudent doctor, in the same circumstances, might have undertaken; and 3. an examination of the unique knowledge and circumstances of the doctor who authored the report." - See paragraph 249.

Medicine - Topic 4324

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

Medicine - Topic 4324

Liability of practitioners - Bars to actions -Limitation periods - The Alberta Court of Appeal reviewed the case law on limitation periods for actions against physicians for negligence or malpractice and set out the following principles: "1. The limitation period starts to run when the physician stops treating the original ailment which gave rise to the complaint. A gap in treatment is permitted so long as subsequent treatment is still in respect of the original ailment. 2. The limitation period will be extended if the doctor treats the consequences flowing from any negligence in the treatment of the original ailment. It is not sufficient that the doctor treat the patient for an unrelated ailment. 3. If the patient has effectively terminated the relationship with the physician in respect of the treatment of the original ailment, for example, by the passage of time or by consulting other doctors about the ailment, the limitation period will not necessarily be extended by a subsequent consultation with the physician who is alleged to have been negligent. 4. The determination when professional services terminate is a question of fact, based on the circumstances." -See paragraph 367.

Cases Noticed:

Neuzen v. Korn, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 674; 188 N.R. 161; 64 B.C.A.C. 241; 105 W.A.C. 241; 127 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [paras. 8, 118, 256].

ter Neuzen - see Neuzen v. Korn.

Kelly v. Lundgard et al., [1996] A.J. No. 672, refd to. [para. 16].

Queen (D.J.) v. Cognos Inc., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 87; 147 N.R. 169; 60 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [paras. 20, 104, 260].

Schrump v. Koot (1977), 18 O.R.(2d) 337 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 25, 266].

Janiak v. Ippolito, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 146; 57 N.R. 241; 9 O.A.C. 1; 31 C.C.L.T. 113, refd to. [paras. 25, 266].

Athey v. Leonati et al., [1996] 3 S.C.R. 458; 203 N.R. 36; 81 B.C.A.C. 243; 132 W.A.C. 243; 140 D.L.R.(4th) 235, refd to. [paras. 25, 141, 266].

Andronyk v. Williams et al. (1985), 36 Man.R.(2d) 161; 35 C.C.L.T. 38 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 105].

McInerny v. Lloyd's Bank, [1974] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 246 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 107].

Anderson v. Chasney, [1949] 4 D.L.R. 71 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Kripps et al. v. Touche Ross & Co. et al., [1997] 6 W.W.R. 421; 89 B.C.A.C. 288; 145 W.A.C. 288 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 127, 290].

Brousseau v. Jarrett (1977), 73 Cal. App.3d 864, refd to. [para. 130].

Felis v. Greenberg (1966), 51 Misc.2d 881 (N.Y.S.C.), refd to. [para. 131].

Rosenthal v. Blum (1975), 529 S.W.2d 102 (Tex. Civ. App.), refd to. [para. 132].

Arndt et al. v. Smith, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 539; 213 N.R. 243; 92 B.C.A.C. 185; 150 W.A.C. 185; 148 D.L.R.(4th) 48, refd to. [paras. 135, 252].

Reibl v. Hughes, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 880; 33 N.R. 361; 114 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [paras. 135, 252].

Lepp v. Hopp, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 192; 32 N.R. 145; 22 A.R. 361; 112 D.L.R.(3d) 67, refd to. [paras. 136, 252].

Ciarlariello et al. v. Schacter et al., [1993] 2 S.C.R. 119; 151 N.R. 133; 62 O.A.C. 161; 100 D.L.R.(4th) 609, refd to. [para. 136].

Duncan Estate v. Baddeley et al. (1997), 196 A.R. 161; 141 W.A.C. 161; 145 D.L.R.(4th) 708; 50 Alta. L.R.(3d) 202 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1997), 225 N.R. 397; 212 A.R. 397; 168 W.A.C. 397 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 142].

Antonopoulos v. Gillespie (1992), 10 B.C.A.C. 161; 21 W.A.C. 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 177].

Muir v. Alberta (1996), 179 A.R. 32; 132 D.L.R.(4th) 695 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 181].

Workers' Compensation Board (Alta.) v. Riggins et al. (1992), 131 A.R. 205; 25 W.A.C. 205; 5 Alta. L.R.(3d) 66 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 181, 328].

Fisher v. Knibbe (1992), 125 A.R. 219; 14 W.A.C. 219; 3 Alta. L.R.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 181, 328].

Rose v. Mitton (1994), 128 N.S.R.(2d) 99; 359 A.P.R. 99; 111 D.L.R.(4th) 217 (C.A.), leave to appeal dismissed (1984), 178 N.R. 392; 136 N.S.R.(2d) 80; 359 A.P.R. 80; 115 D.L.R.(4th) vii (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 182, 334].

Morrison v. Novelli, [1986] B.C.J. No. 172 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 191].

Brennan v. Alexis, [1984] O.J. No. 555 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 191].

Lanthier-Rochon v. Sim (1996), 21 O.T.C. 182 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 191].

Hagan v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (1998), 231 A.R. 153 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 192].

Eve, Re, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 388; 71 N.R. 1; 61 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 273; 185 A.P.R. 273, refd to. [para. 192].

Czyz et al. v. Langenhahn et al. (1998), 219 A.R. 9; 179 W.A.C. 9; 158 D.L.R.(4th) 615 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 197].

V.A.H. v. Lynch (1998), 224 A.R. 359 (Q.B.), refd to. [paras. 199, 366].

Bullen v. Hershfield, [1992] A.J. No. 1212 (Q.B.), refd to. [paras. 199, 366].

Boase v. Paul, [1931] 4 D.L.R. 435 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [paras. 202, 346].

Fishman v. Waters (1983), 4 D.L.R.(4th) 760 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [paras. 202, 344].

Cantelo v. Habbi (1988), 69 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 80; 211 A.P.R. 80; 49 D.L.R.(4th) 94 (P.E.I.C.A.), refd to. [para. 205].

Berardinelli v. Ontario Housing Corp. et al., [1979] 1 S.C.R. 275; 23 N.R. 298, refd to. [para. 206].

Des Champs v. Conseil des écoles séparées catholiques de langue française de Prescott-Russell et al., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 281; 245 N.R. 201; 125 O.A.C. 279, refd to. [paras. 206, 372].

Campbell v. Fang and Steinhauer (1994), 155 A.R. 270; 73 W.A.C. 270 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 206, 352].

Miller v. Ryerson (1892), 22 O.R. 369 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 209].

Gloning v. Miller (1953), 10 W.W.R.(N.S.) 414 (Alta. T.D.), refd to. [paras. 216, 364].

Parker et al. v. Doig et al., [1989] 2 W.W.R. 654; 72 Sask.R. 271 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 216].

Narynski v. Dow Corning Canada Inc. et al. (1997), 115 Man.R.(2d) 309; 139 W.A.C. 309; 147 D.L.R.(4th) 208 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 219].

Fehr v. Jacob and Bethel Hospital (1993), 85 Man.R.(2d) 63; 41 W.A.C. 63 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 219].

Sehon v. Miller (1995), 47 C.P.C.(3d) 20 (Man. Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 219].

Carrier v. McCowan (1971), 24 D.L.R.(3d) 105 (Alta. T.D.), refd to. [para. 220].

Baltzan v. Fidelity Insurance Co. of Canada, [1932] 3 W.W.R. 140 (Sask. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 220].

Fabian v. Margulies (1985), 53 O.R.(2d) 380 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 225].

Roe v. Minister of Health, [1954] 2 Q.B. 66, refd to. [para. 226].

Hollis v. Dow Corning Corp. et al., [1995] 4 S.C.R. 634; 190 N.R. 241; 67 B.C.A.C. 1; 111 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 253].

Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] A.C. 562 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 266].

Campbell v. Leslie (B.) Real Estate & Development Co. (1973), 1 N.R. 89 (S.C.C.), revsing. (1971), 1 N.R. 90 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 272].

Andronyk v. Williams et al. (1985), 36 Man.R.(2d) 161; 35 C.C.L.T. 38 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 272].

Datile Financial Corp. v. Royal Trust Corp. of Canada (1991), 5 O.R.(3d) 358 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 272].

Foster Advertising Ltd. v. Keenberg and Manitoba, [1987] 3 W.W.R. 127; 45 Man.R.(2d) 1 (C.A.), leave to appeal dismissed (1987), 80 N.R. 314; 46 Man.R.(2d) 240 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 273].

Engel v. Salyn et al., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 306; 147 N.R. 321; 105 Sask.R. 81; 32 W.A.C. 81; 99 D.L.R.(4th) 401, refd to. [para. 277].

Mallett v. McMonagle, [1970] A.C. 166 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 277].

Kovats v. Ogilvie (1970), 17 D.L.R.(3d) 343 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 277].

Graham et al. v. Rourke (1990), 40 O.A.C. 301; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 277].

Central Trust Co. v. Rafuse and Cordon, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 147; 69 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 280].

Lapointe v. Hôpital le Gardeur - see Lapointe v. Chevrette.

Lapointe v. Chevrette, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 351; 133 N.R. 116; 45 Q.A.C. 262; 90 D.L.R.(4th) 7, refd to. [para. 288].

Polansky Electronics Ltd. v. AGT Ltd. et al., (2001), 277 A.R. 43; 242 W.A.C. 43, refd to. [para. 303].

Johnson v. Perez (1988), 63 A.L.J.R. 53 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 337].

Sobon v. Kosloski and Ivanovski (1986), 46 Sask.R. 172 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 344].

Philippon v. Legate, [1970] 1 O.R. 392 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 346].

McBain v. Laurentian Hospital (1982), 35 C.P.C. 292, refd to. [para. 346].

Vincent v. Hall (1985), 49 O.R.(2d) 701 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 346].

Hadley v. Allore (1987), 54 D.L.R.(4th) 702 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 346].

Clark v. Naqvi (1990), 99 N.B.R.(2d) 271; 250 A.P.R. 271; 63 D.L.R.(4th) 361 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 347].

Russell v. Gillespie et al. (1991), 61 B.C.L.R.(2d) 82 (S.C. Master), refd to. [para. 347].

McGillivray v. New Brunswick and Moncton (City) (1994), 145 N.B.R.(2d) 281; 372 A.P.R. 281; 111 D.L.R.(4th) 483 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 350].

Erkelens v. Ledger, [1997] 2 W.W.R. 597; 114 Man.R.(2d) 310 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 351].

McGrath v. Kiely, [1965] I.R. 497, refd to. [para. 354].

Miller v. Ryerson (1892), 22 O.R. 369 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 356].

Czyz et al. v. Langenhahn et al. (1998), 219 A.R. 9; 179 W.A.C. 9; 158 D.L.R.(4th) 615 (C.A.), leave to appeal dismissed (1998), 236 N.R. 387; 237 A.R. 134; 197 W.A.C. 134 (S.C.C.), leave to reconsider dismissed [1998] S.C.C.A. No. 293, refd to. [para. 362].

Peixeiro v. Haberman, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 549; 217 N.R. 371; 103 O.A.C. 161; 151 D.L.R.(4th) 429, refd to. [para. 362].

Tremeer v. Black, [1924] 2 D.L.R. 520; 18 Sask. L.R. 260; [1924] 2 W.W.R. 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 363].

Parker et al. v. Doig et al., [1989] 2 W.W.R. 654; 72 Sask.R. 271 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 365].

Novak et al. v. Bond, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 808; 239 N.R. 134; 122 B.C.A.C. 161; 200 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 372].

Statutes Noticed:

Limitations of Actions Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. L-15, sect. 55 [para. 22].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canadian, Medical Association, Code of Ethics, ss. 9, 55 [para. 221].

Carter, Rose M., Interaction Between Lawyers & Physicians in Litigation (1997), generally [para. 280].

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Statutes (3rd Ed. 1994), pp. 4 [para. 204]; 52 [para. 208].

Gibson, A., Courts and Doctors (1952), Can. Bar Rev. 498, p. 501 [para. 140].

Gross, E.L., in Injury Evaluation: Medicolegal Principles (1991), p. 26 [para. 354].

Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Ed. 1976), vol. 12, pp. 483, 484 [para. 267].

Klar, Lewis N., Tort Law (1991), pp. 190 [para. 284]; 121, 122 [para. 112].

Kohlman, R.J., Medicolegal Malpractice: Wrongful Medical Evaluation (1987), 49 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts2d 331, generally [para. 131].

Law Society of Alberta, Code of Professional Conduct, c. 13, generally [para. 223].

McLaren, John P.S., Of Doctors, Hospitals and Limitations - "The Patients Dilemma" (1973), 11 Osgoode Hall L.J. 85, generally [para. 365].

Meagher, Arthur J., Marr and Meagher, Doctors and Hospitals: Legal Duties (1991), generally [para. 140, footnote 1].

Medico-Legal Society of Toronto, Comment: Medico-Legal Report (1991), 70 Can. Bar Rev. 588, pp. 589 [para. 276]; 594 [para. 292].

Medico-Legal Society of Toronto, The Medico-Legal Report: Obligations and Rights (1986), 20 L.S.U.C. Gazette 248, p. 597 [para. 223].

Picard, Ellen I., and Robertson, Gerald B., Legal Liability of Doctors and Hospitals in Canada (3rd Ed. 1996), pp. 113 [para. 253]; 272, 273 [para. 256].

Robertson, G., Medical Assessment and Professional Liability, in Injury Evaluation: Medicolegal Principles (1991), p. 26 [para. 354].

Counsel:

D.R. Cranston, Q.C., for the appellants;

J.V. Miller, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard January 4, 1999, by Fraser, C.J.A., Conrad and Fruman, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. On July 6, 2001, the Court of Appeal delivered reserved reasons for judgment, including the following opinions:

Fraser, C.J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 35;

Conrad, J.A., dissenting in part - see paragraphs 36 to 232;

Fruman, J.A., dissenting in part - see paragraphs 233 to 378.