Phillip v. Whitecourt General Hospital et al., (2005) 381 A.R. 234 (QB)

• Judge: Watson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: February 14, 2005
• Citations: (2005), 381 A.R. 234 (QB);2005 ABQB 174

Phillip v. Whitecourt Hospital (2005), 381 A.R. 234 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] A.R. TBEd. JN.023

Montana Niketa Phillip, a Minor by Her Next Friend Yvonne Bertha Phillip, Yvonne Bertha Phillip, and Jay Bernard Phillip (plaintiffs) v. The Whitecourt General Hospital, Whitecourt Health Care Centre, Aspen Regional Health Authority #11, Harvey A. Bablitz, Pierre Morrisette, University of Alberta Hospital, University of Alberta Hospitals Board, Capital Health Authority, Douglas K. Still, Linda M. Case and David Schiff (defendants)

(9603 01800; 2005 ABQB 174)

Indexed As: Phillip v. Whitecourt General Hospital et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Watson, J.

February 14, 2005.

Summary:

A doctor, who treated a two day old infant at an emergency room in January 1995, was found negligent and liable for damages for misdiagnosing the infant's hypoglycemia crisis which added to the child's profound developmental delay and vision problems (see 359 A.R. 201 and 359 A.R. 259). Issues arose respecting the discount rate and costs.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench determined the issues accordingly.

Damages - Topic 1546

General damages - General damages for personal injury - Discount or capitalization rate and present value of future payments -A doctor, who treated a two day old infant at an emergency room in January 1995, was found negligent and liable for damages for misdiagnosing the infant's hypoglycemia crisis which added to the child's profound developmental delay and vision problems - An issue arose respecting the discount rate - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench applied a discount rate of 3.5 percent to the calculation of the future cost of care and a 2.5 percent discount rate to the loss of earnings - See paragraphs 3 to 24.

Damages - Topic 1636

General damages - Considerations in assessing general damages - Taxes - GST - A doctor, who treated a two day old infant at an emergency room in January 1995, was found negligent and liable for damages for misdiagnosing the infant's hypoglycemia crisis which added to the child's profound developmental delay and vision problems - An issue arose respecting goods and services tax (GST) on various portions of the award - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench declined to apply GST to the $10,000 awarded for furniture or toys, to the $5,000 awarded for expenses of driving to and from work and time off work, etc., to the $5,000 for reconfiguration of the house or to the amount awarded for supervision, assistance and instruction for the child - See paragraphs 25 to 35.

Practice - Topic 7063

Costs - Party and party costs - Counsel fees - Special or additional counsel - A doctor, who treated a two day old infant at an emergency room in January 1995, was found negligent and liable for damages for misdiagnosing the infant's hypoglycemia crisis which added to the child's profound developmental delay and vision problems -The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench awarded a net multiple of 1.75 times column 5 respecting costs - The court, however, also awarded $10,000 respecting document discovery and $50,000 respecting trial preparation - The court held further that second counsel fees were entirely justified in this case, but not third counsel fees or fees respecting an articling student - Goods and services tax (GST) was awarded on the lawyer's fees element of the costs - See paragraphs 80 to 103.

Practice - Topic 7064

Costs - Party and party costs - Counsel fees - Article clerks, paralegals, etc. - During a malpractice suit the plaintiffs' counsel utilized an articling student - The plaintiffs were successful and in calculating costs the issue of the articling student arose - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, per Watson, J., stated that "... with all due respect to articling students - they are no more important than computer research and in fact are probably just an arm of computer research in this day and age ... Consequently, I do not think it would be principled on my part to grant a fee on that particular point" - See paragraph 97.

Practice - Topic 7082

Costs - Party and party costs - Witness fees and costs of preparation for trial or appeal - Preparation for trial - [See Practice - Topic 7063 ].

Practice - Topic 7115

Costs - Party and party costs - Special orders - Increase in scale of costs - Difficulty and complexity of proceedings - A doctor, who treated a two day old infant at an emergency room in January 1995, was found negligent and liable for damages for misdiagnosing the infant's hypoglycemia crisis which added to the child's profound developmental delay and vision problems -The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that this was a case where a multiple should be applied in calculating costs on the basis that the case involved a matter of considerable importance to the parties, a matter of complexity and a matter of protracted development - The court discussed generally the issue of multiples and awarded a multiple of two of column 5 (i.e., two times column 5) - The court however discounted from that .25 to reflect the elimination of the complexity figures in relation to certain matters - Therefore, the actual multiple was 1.75 in net effect - See paragraphs 36 to 72.

Practice - Topic 7118.1

Costs - Party and party costs - Special orders - Multiplier - [See Practice - Topic 7115 ].

Practice - Topic 7134

Costs - Party and party costs - Disbursements - Photocopies or printing - The defendant doctor was found negligent in a medical malpractice suit - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench noted that there was a debate relative to the photocopying and facsimile charges - The court stated that this type of internal office expense was something which was to be included within the law firms' overall approach to how it billed all its clients and not something which could be individually added to the bills for particular clients - Consequently, while some lawyers may in fact do that, that would not be something which could be legitimately characterized as a disbursement - See paragraphs 106 and 107.

Practice - Topic 7138

Costs - Party and party costs - Disbursements - Computer research - The defendant doctor was found negligent in a medical malpractice suit - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench disallowed the plaintiffs' claim for disbursements for computer research - The court held that the computer search process was intended to reduce the amount of legal time spent and was part of the fee process - The court stated that "... Nowadays, law firms simply have to have computers. They have to function on computers, just like they have to have heat in the offices. There may have been a time when Bob Cratchit had to get his own coal or something, but nowadays the law firms have to just sort of absorb all those sorts of things. As a consequence, I would disqualify computer research as a claim in this instance" - See paragraphs 104 and 105.

Practice - Topic 7150.3

Costs - Party and party costs - Disbursements - Faxes - [See Practice - Topic 7134 ].

Cases Noticed:

Century Services Inc. v. ZI Corp. et al. - see Century Services Inc. v. Multi-Corp Inc. and Lobsinger.

Century Services Inc. v. Multi-Corp Inc. and Lobsinger (1998), 228 A.R. 103; 188 W.A.C. 103; 1998 CarswellAlta 1102; 1998 ABCA 403, refd to. [para. 36, footnote 13].

Trizec Equities Ltd. v. Ellis-Don Management Services Ltd. et al. (1999), 251 A.R. 101; 1999 CarswellAlta 1469; 1999 ABQB 801, refd to. [para. 38, footnote 16].

Amalgamated Transit Union et al. v. Independent Canadian Transit Union et al., [1997] 7 W.W.R. 696; 203 A.R. 204; 51 Alta. L.R.(3d) 207; 1997 CarswellAlta 409 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 39, footnote 19].

Reese et al. v. Alberta (Minister of Forestry, Lands and Wildlife) et al. (1992), 123 A.R. 241; 85 Alta. L.R.(2d) 153; 87 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 7 C.E.L.R.(N.S.) 89; 11 Admin. L.R.(2d) 265; 1992 CarswellAlta 138 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 39, footnote 19].

Allen v. University Hospitals Board et al. (2000), 276 A.R. 345; 2000 CarswellAlta 1542; 2000 ABQB 965, refd to. [para. 39, footnote 19].

Dix v. Alberta (Attorney General) et al., [2003] 1 W.W.R. 580; 315 A.R. 139; 7 Alta. L.R.(4th) 349; 2002 CarswellAlta 1006; 2002 ABQB 768, refd to. [para. 39, footnote 19].

26561 Alberta Ltd. et al. v. King et al., [1999] A.R. Uned. 29; 1999 ABCA 13, refd to. [para. 40, footnote 20].

Schuttler v. Anderson (1999), 246 A.R. 17; 1999 CarswellAlta 708; 1999 ABQB 576, refd to. [para. 40, footnote 20].

Jackson and Parkview Holdings Ltd. v. Trimac Industries Ltd. et al., [1993] 4 W.W.R. 670; 138 A.R. 161; 8 Alta. L.R.(3d) 403 (Q.B.), affd. [1994] 8 W.W.R. 237; 155 A.R. 42; 73 W.A.C. 42; 20 Alta. L.R.(3d) 117 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40, footnote 20].

Banihashem-Bakhtiari et al. v. Axes Investments Inc. et al. - see Bakhtiari et al. v. Axes Investments Inc. et al.

Bakhtiari et al. v. Axes Investments Inc. et al. (2004), 182 O.A.C. 185; 46 M.P.L.R.(3d) 33; 22 C.C.L.T.(3d) 200; 69 O.R.(3d) 671; 2004 CarswellOnt 456 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2004), 333 N.R. 199; 198 O.A.C. 196; 2004 CarswellOnt 3779 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 41, footnote 21].

Papaschase Indian Band No. 136 et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. - see Lameman et al. v. Canada (Attorney General).

Lameman et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2005] 1 C.N.L.R. 200; 365 A.R. 88; 4 C.P.C.(6th) 99; 2004 CarswellAlta 1689; 2004 ABQB 913, refd to. [para. 43, footnote 22].

Mobil Oil Canada Ltd. v. Canadian Superior Oil Ltd. and Nielsen, [1980] 1 W.W.R. 453; 21 A.R. 111 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 43, footnote 23].

Sidorsky et al. v. CFCN Communications Ltd. et al., [1998] 2 W.W.R. 89; 206 A.R. 382; 156 W.A.C. 382; 53 Alta. L.R.(3d) 255; 15 C.P.C.(4th) 174; 40 C.C.L.T.(2d) 94 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 43, footnote 23].

McCullough v. Ayer et al. - see McCullough Estate, Re.

McCullough Estate, Re (1998), 212 A.R. 74; 168 W.A.C. 74; 22 E.T.R.(2d) 29; 1998 CarswellAlta 84; 1998 ABCA 38, refd to. [para. 44, footnote 24].

Wyatt v. Franklin, [1995] G.S.T.C. 43; 123 N.S.R.(2d) 347; 340 A.P.R. 347; 19 C.P.C.(3d) 366; 1993 CarswellNS 69 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 45, footnote 25].

Dybongco-Rimando Estate et al. v. Jackiewicz et al., [2003] O.J. No. 534; 2003 CarswellOnt 546 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 45, footnote 25].

Van Dyke v. Grey Bruce Regional Health Centre et al., 2004 CarswellOnt 392 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 45, footnote 25].

Pocklington Foods Inc. v. Alberta (Provincial Treasurer), [1999] 10 W.W.R. 385; 226 A.R. 238; 70 Alta. L.R.(3d) 242; 1998 CarswellAlta 1304 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 46, footnote 26].

Crossing Company Inc. v. Banister Pipelines Inc. et al., [2003] A.R. Uned. 614; 2003 CarswellAlta 1438; 2003 ABQB 792, refd to. [para. 46, footnote 26].

Calbar Securities Ltd. v. Toole Peet Co. et al. (1984), 50 A.R. 393; 30 Alta. L.R.(2d) 286; 1984 CarswellAlta 31 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47, footnote 28].

Power Farms Ltd. v. Magi et al., [2003] A.R. Uned. 409; 2003 CarswellAlta 1325; 2003 ABQB 782, refd to. [para. 48, footnote 29].

Tat v. Ellis et al. (1999), 228 A.R. 263; 188 W.A.C. 263; 1999 CarswellAlta 28; 1999 ABCA 12, refd to. [para. 51, footnote 31].

Mitran v. Guarantee RV Centre Inc. et al., [1999] 12 W.W.R. 669; 251 A.R. 77; 72 Alta. L.R.(3d) 54; 1999 CarswellAlta 869 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 57, footnote 33].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. New Brunswick (Attorney General), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 480; 203 N.R. 169; 182 N.B.R.(2d) 81; 463 A.P.R. 81; 110 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 2 C.R.(5th) 1; 139 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 39 C.R.R.(2d) 189; 1996 CarswellNB 463, refd to. [para. 57, footnote 33].

Hansraj v. Ao et al., [2002] 11 W.W.R. 688; 314 A.R. 283; 4 Alta. L.R.(4th) 147; 2002 CarswellAlta 1064; 2002 ABQB 772, refd to. [para. 74, footnote 34].

Guarantee Co. of North America v. Bease et al. (1993), 139 A.R. 241; 14 C.P.C.(3d) 182 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 75, footnote 35].

741431 Alberta Ltd. v. Devon (Town) (2003), 338 A.R. 134; 2003 CarswellAlta 583; 2003 ABQB 377, refd to. [para. 75, footnote 35].

MacCabe v. Board of Education of Westlock (Roman Catholic Separate) School District No. 110 et al., [2000] 2 W.W.R. 82; 243 A.R. 280; 73 Alta. L.R.(3d) 107; 1999 CarswellAlta 815 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 75, footnote 36].

Hansraj v. Ao et al. (2004), 354 A.R. 91; 329 W.A.C. 91; 34 Alta. L.R.(4th) 199; 2004 CarswellAlta 849; 2004 ABCA 223, refd to. [para. 76, footnote 37].

Jamieson et al. v. Denman et al. (2004), 365 A.R. 245; 34 Alta. L.R.(4th) 162; 2004 CarswellAlta 1223; 2004 ABQB 693, refd to. [para. 77, footnote 38].

Hydro Kleen Systems Inc. et al. v. Park et al., [2003] A.R. Uned. 800; [2004] 11 W.W.R. 733; 27 Alta. L.R.(4th) 99; 2003 CarswellAlta 1661; 2003 ABQB 955, refd to. [para. 81, footnote 39].

LSI Logic Corp. of Canada Inc. et al. v. Logani et al., [2002] 4 W.W.R. 531; 100 Alta. L.R.(3d) 49; 2001 CarswellAlta 1733; 2001 ABQB 968, refd to. [para. 88, footnote 40].

Alberta Provincial Judges' Association v. Alberta, [2000] 3 W.W.R. 44; 250 A.R. 145; 213 W.A.C. 145; 75 Alta. L.R.(3d) 184; 1999 CarswellAlta 1136; 1999 ABCA 349, refd to. [para. 94, footnote 41].

London et al. v. Berscht et al., [1992] 3 W.W.R. 701; 85 Alta. L.R.(2d) 272; 1991 CarswellAlta 256, refd to. [para. 97, footnote 42].

Madge v. Meyer et al., [2000] 6 W.W.R. 272; 259 A.R. 351; 77 Alta. L.R.(3d) 391; 2000 CarswellAlta 188 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 101, footnote 43].

Standquist et al. v. Coneco Equipment et al., [2000] A.R. Uned. 86; 2000 CarswellAlta 443; 2000 ABCA 138, refd to. [para. 105, footnote 44].

Milsom v. Corporate Computers Inc. et al., [2003] A.R. Uned. 424; [2003] 9 W.W.R. 269; 17 Alta. L.R.(4th) 143; 2003 CarswellAlta 1011; 2003 ABQB 609, refd to. [para. 105, footnote 44].

Gainers Inc. v. Pocklington Holdings Inc. et al. (1996), 182 A.R. 78; 38 Alta. L.R.(3d) 124; 50 C.P.C.(3d) 25; 1996 CarswellAlta 286 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 106, footnote 45].

Dechant v. Law Society of Alberta, [2001] 5 W.W.R. 448; 277 A.R. 333; 242 W.A.C. 333; 89 Alta. L.R.(3d) 289; 2001 CarswellAlta 356; 2001 ABCA 81, refd to. [para. 107, footnote 46].

Mar Automobile Holdings Ltd. et al. v. Rawlusyk et al. (2001), 295 A.R. 152; 93 Alta. L.R.(3d) 141; 2001 CarswellAlta 855; 2001 ABQB 516, refd to. [para. 110, footnote 47].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bruce, Christopher J., Assessment of Personal Injury Damages (3rd Ed. 1999), p. 6 [para. 10, footnote 4].

Cooper-Stevenson, Kenneth D., and Saunders, Iwan B., Personal Injury Damages in Canada (2nd Ed. 1996), p. 455 [para. 13, footnote 8].

Orkin, Mark M., The Law of Costs (2nd Ed.) (2004 Looseleaf Supp.), pp. 2-26, § 204 [para. 55, footnote 32]; 2-46.2, § 205 [para. 36, footnote 13].

Counsel:

H.W. Veale, Q.C., and R. Wasylyshyn, for the plaintiffs;

R.B. Low, Q.C., and L. Goldbach, for the defendants.

This costs matter was heard on February 14, 2005, by Watson, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following oral decision on the same day, which was edited for publication and filed on March 21, 2005.