V.A.H. v. Lynch et al., (1998) 224 A.R. 359 (QB)

• Judge: Rooke, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: July 16, 1998
• Citations: (1998), 224 A.R. 359 (QB);1998 ABQB 622

V.A.H. v. Lynch (1998), 224 A.R. 359 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] A.R. TBEd. AU.004

V.A.H. (plaintiff) v. Roland F. Lynch, Robert J. Herget, Sharon Stewart (A.K.A. Sharon Moore), Calgary Regional Health Authority, Metro-Calgary and Rural General Calgary District No. 93 (A.K.A. Calgary District Hospital Group), Holy Cross Hospital and Janet Hoffman (A.K.A. Janet Singh) (defendants)

(Action No. 9401-04870; 1998 ABQB 622)

Indexed As: V.A.H. v. Lynch et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Rooke, J.

July 16, 1998.

Summary:

The plaintiff was hospitalized at the psychiatric unit of the Holy Cross Hospital from April 28 to June 1, 1977 as a result of emotional difficulties following child birth. Almost 17 years later she commenced a negligence action against the doctors and hospital and an action alleging false imprisonment, assault and battery against the hospital staff. The doctors, hospital and hospital staff (the defendants) applied for summary judgment dismissing the actions against them, arguing that the actions were barred by the Limitation of Actions Act.

A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision not reported in this series of reports, dismissed the applications. The defendants appealed.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the appeal, holding that the plaintiff's actions against the doctors, hospital and hospital staff were statute barred. The court granted summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claims.

Hospitals - Topic 2190

Liability of hospitals - Limitation of actions - When time begins to run - [See fourth Limitation of Actions - Topic 15 ].

Limitation of Actions - Topic 15

General principles - Discoverability rule - Application of - Section 55 of the Limitation of Actions Act provided that actions for malpractice had to be commenced within one year from the date when the professional services terminated - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that it had been determined by the Court of Appeal that the discoverability principle does not apply to s. 55 - See paragraphs 27 to 32.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 15

General principles - Discoverability rule - Application of - The plaintiff was hospitalized at the psychiatric unit of a hospital for five weeks in 1977 - Almost 17 years later she sued the hospital, doctors and hospital staff - The doctors argued that the malpractice action was barred by the one year limitation period in s. 55 of the Limitation of Actions Act - The plaintiff argued that she only discovered the negligence in 1993 and her statement of claim was filed on April 5, 1994, within the one year limitation period - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the action against the doctors was statute barred - The discoverability principle did not apply to s. 55, and even if it did, there was no need to extend the limitation period because the causes of action were discoverable had the plaintiff exercised reasonable diligence within the limitation period - See paragraphs 27 to 33.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 15

General principles - Discoverability rule - Application of - The plaintiff was hospitalized at the psychiatric unit of a hospital for five weeks in 1977 - Almost 17 years later she sued the hospital, doctors and hospital staff (the defendants) - The defendants argued that the actions against them were barred by various limitation periods in the Limitation of Actions Act - The plaintiff argued that there had been fraudulent concealment within the meaning of s. 57 and therefore the causes of action were deemed to have arisen when the fraud was first known or discovered - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected the plaintiff's argument where there was no concealment (fraudulent or otherwise) of the facts by any of the defendants relevant to the existence of the plaintiff's causes of action - See paragraphs 34, 96 to 113.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 15

General principles - Discoverability rule - Application of - The plaintiff was hospitalized in a psychiatric unit for five weeks in 1977 - Almost 17 years later she sued the hospital for negligence and the hospital staff for false imprisonment, assault and battery - The hospital argued that the negligence action was barred by the one year limitation period (Limitation of Actions Act, s. 51) and the hospital staff argued that the actions against them were barred by the two year limitation period (s. 56) - The plaintiff argued that the causes of action were only discovered in 1993 and her pleadings were filed on April 5, 1994, within the limitation periods - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the actions were statute barred - Although the principle of discoverability applied to ss. 51 and 56, there was no need to extend the limitation period because the causes of action were discoverable with due diligence within the limitation period - See paragraphs 38 to 95.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 3103

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

Limitation of Actions - Topic 3270

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

Limitation of Actions - Topic 9305

Postponement or suspension of statute - Discoverability rule - [See first, second and fourth Limitation of Actions - Topic 15 ].

Limitation of Actions - Topic 9321

Postponement or suspension of statute - Fraud - General - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed the concept of fraudulent concealment as it related to limitations statutes - See paragraphs 96 to 102.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 9326

Postponement or suspension of statute - Fraud - When time begins to run - [See third Limitation of Actions - Topic 15 ].

Medicine - Topic 4324

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

Cases Noticed:

Lepp v. Hopp, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 192; 32 N.R. 145, refd to. [para. 6].

Norberg v. Wynrib, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 226; 138 N.R. 81; 9 B.C.A.C. 1; 19 W.A.C. 1; 92 D.L.R.(4th) 449; [1992] 4 W.W.R. 577; 12 C.C.L.T.(2d) 1; 68 B.C.L.R.(2d) 29, refd to. [para. 6].

Freeman v. Lavoie et al. (1989), 95 A.R. 66 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 30].

Scott v. Birdsell et al. (1993), 143 A.R. 254 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 30].

Langenhahn v. Czyz, [1996] A.J. No. 196 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 30].

Kelly v. Lundgard et al. (1996), 189 A.R. 34; 40 Alta. L.R.(3d) 234; [1996] 8 W.W.R. 108; 29 C.C.L.T.(2d) 113 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 30].

Brown et al. v. University of Alberta Hospital et al. (1997), 197 A.R. 237 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 30].

Peixeiro v. Haberman, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 549; 217 N.R. 371; 103 O.A.C. 161; 151 D.L.R.(4th) 429; 30 M.V.R.(3d) 41, refd to. [para. 30].

Hygaard v. Gailiunas (1997), 202 A.R. 161 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 31].

Fischer v. Johnston et al. (1998), 215 A.R. 395 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 31].

Roberts v. Picture Butte Municipal Hospital, [1997] A.J. No. 1295 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 31].

Webster v. Morcos (1998), 220 A.R. 265 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 31].

Czyz et al. v. Langenhahn et al. (1998), 219 A.R. 9; 179 W.A.C. 9 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

Levitt v. Carr et al., [1992] 4 W.W.R. 160; 12 B.C.A.C. 27; 23 W.A.C. 27 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44, footnote 10].

Vance v. Peglar et al. (1996), 78 B.C.A.C. 299; 128 W.A.C. 299 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

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; 31 D.L.R.(4th) 481, refd to. [para. 44].

Nielsen v. Kamloops (City) and Hughes, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 2; 54 N.R. 1; [1984] 5 W.W.R. 1; 29 C.C.L.T. 97; 8 C.L.R. 1; 10 D.L.R.(4th) 641, refd to. [para. 44].

K.M. v. H.M., [1992] 3 S.C.R. 3; 142 N.R. 321; 57 O.A.C. 321; 96 D.L.R.(4th) 289, refd to. [para. 46].

Hill v. Registar of South Alberta Land Registration District (1993), 135 A.R. 266; 33 W.A.C. 266; 100 D.L.R.(4th) 331 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

Royal Canadian Legion Norwood (Alberta) Branch 178 v. Edmonton (City) (1994), 149 A.R. 25; 63 W.A.C. 25; 111 D.L.R.(4th) 141 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

D.L.W. v. Alberta (Minister of Social Services) (1992), 132 A.R. 29; 3 Alta. L.R.(3d) 281 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 47].

Newlove v. Petrie, [1995] O.J. No. 1393 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 48].

Weselak v. Beausejour District Hospital No. 29 (1987), 49 Man.R.(2d) 86 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

Kowalchuk v. Adduri, [1990] 5 W.W.R. 565; 71 Man.R.(2d) 144 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 51].

McInerney v. MacDonald, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 138; 137 N.R. 35; 126 N.B.R.(2d) 271; 317 A.P.R. 271; 93 D.L.R.(4th) 415, refd to. [para. 55].

D.M. v. Lindsay (1981), 26 A.R. 159; 121 D.L.R.(3d) 261 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

McAllister Estate v. Regina Health District Inc. et al. (1996), 149 Sask.R. 23 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 95].

Apostle v. Cham and McCarthy, [1986] 3 W.W.R. 95; 31 Man.R.(2d) 12 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 95].

Stawnychko v. Rutherford (1993), 137 A.R. 235; 7 Alta. L.R.(3d) 352 (Q.B.), revd. (1994), 155 A.R. 396; 73 W.A.C. 396 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 97].

Photinopoulos v. Photinopoulos et al. (1988), 92 A.R. 122; 63 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; [1989] 2 W.W.R. 56; 31 C.P.C.(2d) 267; 54 D.L.R.(4th) 372 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 97].

Evans v. Crooks et al. (1995), 173 A.R. 107 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 97].

Luscar Ltd. and Norcen Energy Resources Ltd. v. Pembina Resources Ltd. (1992), 122 A.R. 83; 85 Alta. L.R.(2d) 46 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 99].

Apostle v. Cham and McCarthy, [1984] 5 W.W.R. 312; 28 Man.R.(2d) 180 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 100].

Guerin v. Canada, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335; 55 N.R. 161; 13 D.L.R.(4th) 321, refd to. [para. 101].

Singleton v. Zuege (1991), 116 A.R. 297; 79 Alta. L.R.(2d) 341 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 101].

Parker et al. v. Doig et al., [1989] 2 W.W.R. 654; 72 Sask.R. 271 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 123].

Stamos v. Davies (1985), 52 O.R.(2d) 10; 21 D.L.R.(4th) 507; 33 C.C.L.T. 1 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 130].

Vasdani v. Sehmi, [1993] O.J. No. 44 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 130].

Snow v. Kashyap (1995), 125 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 182; 389 A.P.R. 182; 53 A.C.W.S.(3d) 53; 29 C.R.R.(2d) 336 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 137].

Sparham-Souter v. Town & Country Developments (Essex) Ltd., [1976] 1 Q.B. 858 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 140].

Cartledge v. Jopling (E.) & Sons Ltd., [1963] A.C. 758 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 140].

Statutes Noticed:

Limitations of Actions Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. L-15, sect. 51 [para. 39]; sect. 55 [para. 27]; sect. 56 [para. 40].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary (27th Ed. 1988), p. 1385 [para. 9, footnote 7].

Fleming, John G., The Law of Torts (8th Ed. 1992), pp. 24 to 30 [para. 53].

Roberston, Gerald, Fraudulent Concealment and the Duty to Disclose Medical Mistakes (1987), 25 Alta. L. Rev. 215, generally [para. 130]; pp. 215 [para. 132]; 215-6 [para. 133].

Counsel:

V.A.H., representing herself;

J.L. Townley, for the doctors;

J. Shriar, for the hospital and staff.

This case was heard before Rooke, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following judgment on July 16, 1998.