Tardif Estate et al. v. Wong et al.,

• Judge: O'Leary,Sirrs,Wittmann
• Neutral Citation: 2002 ABCA 121
• Citation: (2002), 303 A.R. 103 (CA),2002 ABCA 121,303 AR 103,(2002), 303 AR 103 (CA),303 A.R. 103
• Date: 01 November 2001
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)

Tardif Estate v. Wong (2002), 303 A.R. 103 (CA);

    273 W.A.C. 103

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] A.R. TBEd. MY.120

Sharon Tardif, Sharon Tardif as Executrix of the Estate of Roger Joseph Tardif, Breanne Nicole Tardif and Trevor Clayton Tardif by their Next Friend Sharon Tardif (respondents/plaintiffs) v. Andrew Wong, David Fleck, Brian Chew, doing business as Callingwood Medical Centre (appellants/defendants) and John Doe No. 1 doing business as Callingwood Medical Centre, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 8, John Doe No. 9, John Doe No. 10 (defendants/not parties to appeal)

(0003-0423-AC; 2002 ABCA 121)

Indexed As: Tardif Estate et al. v. Wong et al.

Alberta Court of Appeal

O'Leary and Wittmann, JJ.A. and Sirrs, J.(ad hoc)

May 16, 2002.

Summary:

The deceased last visited Drs. Wong, Fleck and Chew on January 16, April 7, and April 11, 1997 respectively. He died on June 29, 1997. The deceased's estate and family commenced a malpractice action against the doctors on May 14, 1998, pleading the Fatal Accidents Act and the Survival of Actions Act. The doctors applied for summary judgment.

A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application. The doctors appealed.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench opined that the one year period in s. 55 of the Limitation of Actions Act (respecting medical negligence) governed the action, not the two year periods set out in ss. 53 and 54 (respecting actions under the Survival of Actions Act and the Fatal Accidents Act). The parties were subsequently asked to submit further argument with respect to whether either the Fatal Accidents Act or the Survival of Actions Act created a new cause of action.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 268 A.R. 113, held that the plaintiffs' claim under the Survival of Actions Act was out of time, but that their action under the Fatal Accidents Act was not. The doctors appealed the finding that the action under the Fatal Accidents Act was not statute barred. The plaintiffs cross-appealed the finding that their action under the Survival of Actions Act was statute barred.

The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and allowed the cross-appeal.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 8

General principles - Interpretation of limitation provisions - The Alberta Court of Appeal discussed the interpretation of limitation provisions - The court noted that limitation periods must be strictly construed in favour of the plaintiff, but the principles of statutory interpretation still applied - See paragraphs 21 to 43.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 3046

Actions in tort - Fatal accidents - General -Sections 53 and 54 of the Limitation of Actions Act created a limitation period of two years following death for claims commenced under the Survival of Actions Act and the Fatal Accidents Act, respectively - Section 55(a) of the Limitation of Actions Act set a limitation period of one year after the termination of medical services for negligence or malpractice claims against physicians - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that when physicians were sued for wrongful death allegedly arising from negligence or malpractice, within two years of the death, but more than one year from the date that the physicians' medical services terminated, the two year limitation period in ss. 53 and 54 applied, not the one year limitation period in s. 55(a).

Limitation of Actions - Topic 8602

Claims by or against an estate - Claim by an estate - Applicable limitation period - [See Limitation of Actions - Topic 3046 ].

Medicine - Topic 4324

Liability of practitioners - Bars to actions -Limitation periods - [See Limitation of Actions - Topic 3046 ].

Cases Noticed:

B.C. Electric Railway Co. v. Gentile (1914), 18 D.L.R. 264 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 4].

Scott v. Thompson (1957), 7 D.L.R.(2d) 655 (Alta. C.A.), dist. [para. 5].

Campbell Estate v. Fang (1994), 155 A.R. 270; 73 W.A.C. 270; 21 Alta. L.R.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Rose v. Ford, [1937] A.C. 826 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 15].

Poulin Estate v. Niewchas (1992), 130 A.R. 396 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 15].

Duncan v. Baddeley et al. (1997), 196 A.R. 161; 141 W.A.C. 161 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (1997), 225 N.R. 397; 212 A.R. 397; 168 W.A.C. 397 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 15].

Ordon et al. v. Grail, [1998] 3 S.C.R. 437; 232 N.R. 201; 115 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 16].

B.C. Electric Co. v. Gentile; Kushner v. Wellesley Hospital (1971), 19 D.L.R.(3d) 56 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Berardinelli v. Ontario Housing Corp. et al., [1979] 1 S.C.R. 275; 23 N.R. 298; 90 D.L.R.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 21].

Méthot c. Commission de transport de Montreal, [1972] S.C.R. 387, refd to. [para. 21].

Keys v. Mistahia Regional Health Authority et al. (2001), 291 A.R. 97 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 21].

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. 32].

R. v. Hasselwander, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 398; 152 N.R. 247; 62 O.A.C. 285; 81 C.C.C.(3d) 471, consd. [para. 33].

United States of America v. Barrientos (1995), 178 A.R. 1; 110 W.A.C. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Kelly v. Lundgard et al. (2001), 286 A.R. 1; 253 W.A.C. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

Miller v. Ryerson (1892), 22 O.R. 369 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

Erkelens v. Ledger, [1997] 2 W.W.R. 597; 114 Man.R.(2d) 310 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 39].

Gloning v. Miller (1953), 10 W.W.R.(N.S.) 414 (Alta. T.D.), refd to. [para. 39].

Tolofson v. Jensen and Tolofson, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1022; 175 N.R. 161; 77 O.A.C. 81; 51 B.C.A.C. 241; 84 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 48].

Statutes Noticed:

Fatal Accidents Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. F-5, sect. 2 [para. 10].

Limitation of Actions Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. L-15, sect. 53, sect. 54, sect. 55(a) [para. 8].

Survival of Actions Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. S-30, sect. 2 [para. 9].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Dreidger, Elmer A., Construction of Statutes (3rd Ed. 1994), p. 131 [para. 31].

McLaren, J.P.S., Of Doctors, Hospitals and Limitations - "The Patient's Dilemma" (1973), 11 Osgoode Hall L.J. 85, generally [para. 48].

Picard, E.I., and Robertson, G.B., Legal Liabilities of Doctors and Hospitals in Canada (3rd Ed. 1996), pp. 288, 289 [para. 48].

Counsel:

S.D. Johnson, for the appellants, Wong et al.;

W.B. Russell, for the respondents, Tardif et al.

This appeal was heard on November 1, 2001, by O'Leary and Wittmann, JJ.A., and Sirrs, J.(ad hoc), of the Alberta Court of Appeal. Wittmann, J.A., delivered the following decision for the Court of Appeal on May 16, 2002.