Hawthorne v. Markham Stouffville Hospital

Hawthorne v. Markham Stouffville Hospital

The appeal is dismissed because the appellants failed to adduce evidence sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption of discovery in s.5(2) of the Limitations Act, 2002; pleadings alone are not evidence and the receipts in the record, without explanation linking their contents to actual discovery, could not refute...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2016 ONCA 10
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Sherriene Hawthorne; Plaintiff/appellant: Povell Tyrell; Defendant/respondent: Markham Stouffville Hospital; Defendant/respondent: York Central Hospital; Defendant/respondent: Dr. Ademilola Oyenubi; Defendant/respondent: Dr. Joanne Lewtas; Defendant/respondent: Dr. Partha Datta; Defendant/respondent: Dr. Andrew Arcand; Defendant/respondent: Dr. Arthur Bookman; Defendant/respondent: Dr. Caroline Geenen; Defendant/respondent: Dr. Solow; Defendant/respondent: Dr. A. Ing; Defendant/respondent: Dr. Lola; Defendant/respondent: Dr. Bansal; Defendant/respondent: Dr. Gernin; Defendant/respondent: Dr. David Weizman; Defendant/respondent: Dr. Larry Grossman; Defendant/respondent: Dr. M. Sugai; Defendant/respondent: Dr. Andre F. Charest; Defendant/respondent: Dr. Aviv S. Gladman; Defendant/respondent: Dr. Allan Kagal; Defendant/respondent: Dr. Seyed Ali Ghafouri; Defendant/respondent: Dr. Prince S. Aujla
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Summary Judgment Dismissal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Discoverability, Summary Judgment, Limitations Act 2002 S.5(2), Pleadings Not Evidence, Costs
Source Language
english
Civil Litigation Medical Malpractice Limitations Discoverability Summary Judgment Limitations Act 2002 S.5(2) Pleadings Not Evidence Costs

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sherriene Hawthorne

Plaintiff/appellant

Povell Tyrell

Plaintiff/appellant

Markham Stouffville Hospital

Defendant/respondent

York Central Hospital

Defendant/respondent

Dr. Ademilola Oyenubi

Defendant/respondent

Dr. Joanne Lewtas

Defendant/respondent

Dr. Partha Datta

Defendant/respondent

Dr. Andrew Arcand

Defendant/respondent

Dr. Arthur Bookman

Defendant/respondent

Dr. Caroline Geenen

Defendant/respondent

Dr. Solow

Defendant/respondent

Dr. A. Ing

Defendant/respondent

Dr. Lola

Defendant/respondent

Dr. Bansal

Defendant/respondent

Dr. Gernin

Defendant/respondent

Dr. David Weizman

Defendant/respondent

Dr. Larry Grossman

Defendant/respondent

Dr. M. Sugai

Defendant/respondent

Dr. Andre F. Charest

Defendant/respondent

Dr. Aviv S. Gladman

Defendant/respondent

Dr. Allan Kagal

Defendant/respondent

Dr. Seyed Ali Ghafouri

Defendant/respondent

Dr. Prince S. Aujla

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Summary Judgment Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs discovered their cause of action within the limitation period
  2. 2 Whether the statutory presumption of discovery in s.5(2) of the Limitations Act, 2002 applies
  3. 3 Whether receipts for medical records in the motion record rebut the s.5(2) presumption

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the appellants failed to adduce evidence sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption of discovery in s.5(2) of the Limitations Act, 2002; pleadings alone are not evidence and the receipts in the record, without explanation linking their contents to actual discovery, could not refute the presumption, making summary dismissal appropriate.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Order of the motion judge granting summary judgment dismissal affirmed