Lacroix v. Dominique,

JurisdictionManitoba
JudgeHuband, Twaddle and Steel, JJ.A.
Neutral Citation2001 MBCA 122
Citation(2001), 156 Man.R.(2d) 262 (CA),2001 MBCA 122,202 DLR (4th) 121,[2001] 9 WWR 261,6 CCLT (3d) 212,[2001] MJ No 311 (QL),106 ACWS (3d) 747,156 Man R (2d) 262,156 ManR(2d) 262,156 Man.R.(2d) 262,202 D.L.R. (4th) 121,[2001] M.J. No 311 (QL),(2001), 156 ManR(2d) 262 (CA)
Date29 June 2001
CourtCourt of Appeal (Manitoba)

Lacroix v. Dominique (2001), 156 Man.R.(2d) 262 (CA);

    246 W.A.C. 262

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. JL.006

Donna Nicole Lacroix, a minor suing by her litigation guardian, Janice Elaine Lacroix, and the said Janice Elaine Lacroix and Richard Lacroix (plaintiffs/appellants) v. Francis Stephen Dominique (defendant/respondent)

(AI 99-30-04395; 2001 MBCA 122)

Indexed As: Lacroix v. Dominique

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Huband, Twaddle and Steel, JJ.A.

June 29, 2001.

Summary:

The parents of a disabled child claimed that she was born disabled because her mother took anti-epileptic drugs during pregnancy. The child and the parents sued the mother's doctor, claiming that he was at fault for not fully informing them of the danger to a fetus when a mother is on anti-epileptic drugs.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 141 Man.R.(2d) 1, dismissed the claim. The court provisionally assessed damages. The plaintiffs appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 207

Practice - Limitation period - Commencement of - [See Limitation of Actions - Topic 9305 ].

Limitation of Actions - Topic 9301

Postponement or suspension of statute - General - [See Limitation of Actions - Topic 9305 ].

Limitation of Actions - Topic 9305

Postponement or suspension of statute - General - Discoverability rule - The parents of a disabled child claimed that the mother would not have become pregnant while taking anti-epileptic drugs if her doctor had informed her of the 10% risk that the child would be disabled - More than six years after the child's birth, the child and her parents sued the doctor, claiming he was at fault for not informing them of the danger to the fetus when a mother was on anti-epileptic drugs - The trial judge held that the action was statute barred - The plaintiffs failed to meet the two year limitation period set out in the Medical Act - An extension of time was refused, where they should have been possessed of sufficient material facts to establish their case much earlier - The Manitoba Court of Appeal affirmed that the action was statute barred - Leave to commence the action should have been sought before the claim was filed because the plaintiffs knew or ought to have known that the action was already statute barred at the commencement date - See paragraphs 11 to 18.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 9415

Bars - Disallowance of defence - Application of promissory estoppel - The parents of a disabled child claimed that the mother would not have become pregnant while taking anti-epileptic drugs if her doctor had informed her of the risk that the child would be disabled - More than six years after the child's birth, the parents and the child sued the doctor - The trial judge held that the action was statute barred and there was no evidence of waiver or estoppel that would allow the plaintiffs an extension of the limitation period - The Manitoba Court of Appeal affirmed that the plaintiffs could not rely on waiver or estoppel - The failure to raise the limitation defence in the original statement of defence did not demonstrate the unequivocal and conscious intention to abandon the defence that was required to establish waiver - Estoppel was not found where no detriment arose from the plaintiffs' reliance on the failure to plead the limitation defence - See paragraphs 19 to 23.

Medicine - Topic 4248

Liability of practitioners - Negligence or fault - Failure to inform or disclose - [See Torts - Topic 8801 ].

Torts - Topic 8801

Duty of care - Particular relationships - Claims for prenatal injuries - General - The parents of a disabled child claimed that she was born disabled because her mother took anti-epileptic drugs during pregnancy - The child and the parents sued the mother's doctor on the basis that he was at fault for not fully informing them of the danger to a fetus when a mother was on anti-epileptic drugs - The infant plaintiff's claim was that the doctor negligently allowed her to be born alive in an injured condition, i.e., a claim for "wrongful life" - The Manitoba Court of Appeal affirmed that the child did not have a claim against the doctor for wrongful life - The doctor owed no duty to the future child and it was impossible to calculate the damages - See paragraphs 29 to 42.

Cases Noticed:

Saskatchewan River Bungalows Ltd. and Fikowski v. Maritime Life Assurance Co., [1994] 2 S.C.R. 490; 168 N.R. 381; 155 A.R. 321; 73 W.A.C. 321; 115 D.L.R.(4th) 478; [1994] 4 W.W.R. 37; 20 Alta. L.R.(3d) 296; 23 C.C.L.I.(2d) 161, refd to. [para. 20].

Hrynenko v. Hrynenko (1997), 37 B.C.L.R.(3d) 35 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 22].

Maracle v. Travellers Indemnity Co. of Canada, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 50; 125 N.R. 294; 47 O.A.C. 333, refd to. [para. 23].

Cherry v. Borsman (1990), 75 D.L.R.(4th) 668 (B.C.S.C.), affd. (1992), 16 B.C.A.C. 93; 28 W.A.C. 93; 12 C.C.L.T.(2d) 137 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1993] 2 S.C.R. vi; 152 N.R. 240; 32 B.C.A.C. 79; 53 W.A.C. 79, refd to. [para. 25].

Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] A.C. 562 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 25].

Webster v. Chapman, [1998] 4 W.W.R. 335; 126 Man.R.(2d) 13; 167 W.A.C. 13 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Becker v. Schwartz (1978), 386 N.E.2d 807 (N.Y. App.), refd to. [para. 27].

McKay et al. v. Essex Area Health Authority et al., [1982] 2 All E.R. 771 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Arndt v. Smith, [1994] 8 W.W.R. 568 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 31].

Mickle v. Salvation Army Grace Hospital (1998), 81 O.T.C. 23; 166 D.L.R.(4th) 743 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 31].

Jones v. Rostvig (1999), 7 B.C.T.C. 188; 44 C.C.L.T.(2d) 312 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 31].

Counsel:

D.G. Hill and S.M. Walsh, for the appellants;

G.T. Campbell and H.D. Van Iderstine, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on October 2, and 10, 2000, before Huband, Twaddle and Steel, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal. On June 29, 2001, Twaddle, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the court.

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 practice notes
  • Paxton v. Ramji, 2008 ONCA 697
    • Canada
    • Ontario Court of Appeal (Ontario)
    • 14 Octubre 2008
    ...(incl. wrongful birth or wrongful life) - General - [See all Medicine - Topic 4241.3 ]. Cases Noticed: Lacroix v. Dominique (2001), 156 Man.R.(2d) 262; 246 W.A.C. 262 ; 202 D.L.R.(4th) 121 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2002), 289 N.R. 202 ; 163 Man.R.(2d) 247 ; 269 W.A.C. 247 (S.C......
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (July 19-23)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • 27 Julio 2021
    ...Canada Ltd., 2011 SCC 42, Dobson (Litigation Guardian of) v. Dobson, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 753, Lacroix (Litigation Guardian of) v. Dominique, 2001 MBCA 122, McKay v. Essex Area Health Authority, [1982] Q.B. 1166 (Eng. C.A.), Bovingdon (Litigation Guardian of) v. Hergott, 2008 ONCA 2, Paxton v. R......
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Law of Torts. Sixth Edition
    • 25 Junio 2020
    ...343 Lacroix (Litigation guardian of) v Dominique, [2001] MJ No 311, 202 DLR (4th) 121 (CA), leave to appeal to SCC refused, [2001] SCCA No 477 ................................................................................... 166 Laferriere v Lawson, [1991] 1 SCR 541, [1991] SCJ No 18 ..........
  • Bovingdon et al. v. Hergott, (2008) 233 O.A.C. 84 (CA)
    • Canada
    • Ontario Court of Appeal (Ontario)
    • 18 Junio 2007
    ...Hospital et al. (1998), 81 O.T.C. 23 ; 166 D.L.R.(4th) 743 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 37, footnote 2]. Lacroix v. Dominique (2001), 156 Man.R.(2d) 262; 246 W.A.C. 262 ; 202 D.L.R.(4th) 121 (C.A.), not folld. [para. 37, footnote Arndt et al. v. Smith, [1994] B.C.T.C. Uned. 688 ; [1......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
15 cases
  • Paxton v. Ramji, 2008 ONCA 697
    • Canada
    • Ontario Court of Appeal (Ontario)
    • 14 Octubre 2008
    ...(incl. wrongful birth or wrongful life) - General - [See all Medicine - Topic 4241.3 ]. Cases Noticed: Lacroix v. Dominique (2001), 156 Man.R.(2d) 262; 246 W.A.C. 262 ; 202 D.L.R.(4th) 121 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2002), 289 N.R. 202 ; 163 Man.R.(2d) 247 ; 269 W.A.C. 247 (S.C......
  • Bovingdon et al. v. Hergott, (2008) 233 O.A.C. 84 (CA)
    • Canada
    • Ontario Court of Appeal (Ontario)
    • 18 Junio 2007
    ...Hospital et al. (1998), 81 O.T.C. 23 ; 166 D.L.R.(4th) 743 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 37, footnote 2]. Lacroix v. Dominique (2001), 156 Man.R.(2d) 262; 246 W.A.C. 262 ; 202 D.L.R.(4th) 121 (C.A.), not folld. [para. 37, footnote Arndt et al. v. Smith, [1994] B.C.T.C. Uned. 688 ; [1......
  • Liebig et al. v. Guelph General Hospital et al., 2010 ONCA 450
    • Canada
    • Ontario Court of Appeal (Ontario)
    • 17 Junio 2010
    ...(C.A.), dist. [para. 9]. Paxton v. Ramji (2008), 242 O.A.C. 34; 299 D.L.R.(4th) 614 (C.A.), dist. [para. 9]. Lacroix v. Dominique (2001), 156 Man.R.(2d) 262; 246 W.A.C. 262; 202 D.L.R.(4th) 121 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (2002), 289 N.R. 202; 163 Man.R.(2d) 247; 269 W.A.C. 247 (S.C.C.),......
  • Olford et al. v. Springwood Homes Inc., 2018 MBQB 78
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
    • 10 Mayo 2018
    ...paras 32-33; Swan River Valley Hospital District No 1 v MMP Architects, 2002 MBCA 99 at paras 20-31; Lacroix (Guardian of) v Dominique, 2001 MBCA 122 at para 14; and Winnipeg Condominium Corp No 30 v The Conserver Group Inc et al, 2008 MBCA 20 at paras 23 The LAA recognizes that the nature ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (July 19-23)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • 27 Julio 2021
    ...Canada Ltd., 2011 SCC 42, Dobson (Litigation Guardian of) v. Dobson, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 753, Lacroix (Litigation Guardian of) v. Dominique, 2001 MBCA 122, McKay v. Essex Area Health Authority, [1982] Q.B. 1166 (Eng. C.A.), Bovingdon (Litigation Guardian of) v. Hergott, 2008 ONCA 2, Paxton v. R......
  • The Rights Of Action Of An Unborn Child
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • 15 Abril 2020
    ...No. 508 5 Dobson (Litigation Guardian Of) v. Dobson, 1999 CanLII 698 (SCC), 1999 2 S.C.R. 753 6 Lacroix (Guardian of) v. Dominique, 2001 MBCA 122, 202 D.L.R. (4th) 121, leave to appeal dismissed, [2001] S.C.C.A. No. Rogers Partners LLP is an experienced civil litigation firm in Toronto, Ont......
5 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Law of Torts. Sixth Edition
    • 25 Junio 2020
    ...343 Lacroix (Litigation guardian of) v Dominique, [2001] MJ No 311, 202 DLR (4th) 121 (CA), leave to appeal to SCC refused, [2001] SCCA No 477 ................................................................................... 166 Laferriere v Lawson, [1991] 1 SCR 541, [1991] SCJ No 18 ..........
  • Notions of Reproductive Harm in Canadian Law: Addressing Exposures to Household Chemicals as Reproductive Torts
    • Canada
    • Canadian Journal of Comparative and Contemporary Law No. 1-1, January 2015
    • 1 Enero 2015
    ...appellate court has addressed the validity of the claim, and refused to recognize it. See Lacroix (Litigation guardian of) v Dominique , 2001 MBCA 122 [ Lacroix ], leave to appeal to SCC refused, 2000 SCC A No 477. h e superior courts in several provinces have refused to recognize the actio......
  • Year in review: developments in Canadian law in 2008.
    • Canada
    • University of Toronto Faculty of Law Review Vol. 67 No. 2, March 2009
    • 22 Marzo 2009
    ...v. Hergott, 2008 ONCA 2 [Bovingdon]; Paxton v. Ramji, 2008 ONCA 697 [Paxton]. (41) Lacroix (Litigation Guardian of) v. Dominique (2001), 202 D.L.R. (4th) 121 (MBCA) (42) As was done in Cherry (Guardian ad litem of) v. Borsman (1990), 75 D.L.R. (4th) 668 (BCSC) [Borsman], aff'd (1992), 12 C.......
  • Wrongful birth as negligent misrepresentation.
    • Canada
    • University of Toronto Faculty of Law Review Vol. 71 No. 1, January - January 2013
    • 1 Enero 2013
    ...(11) See e.g., Paxton v Ramji, 2008 ONCA 697 at paras 26, 28, 92 OR (3d) 401 [Paxton]. (12) Lacroix (Litigation Guardian of) v Dominique, 2001 MBCA 122 at para 24, 202 DLR (4th) 121 [Lacroix], leave to appeal to SCC refused (2002), 163 Man R (2d) 247, 289 NR (13) Lacroix, supra note 12 at p......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT