Martin v. Perrie

Martin v. Perrie

The Health Disciplines Act s.17 did not apply to revive causes of action already barred under the Medical Act; the defendant's accrued limitation defence was a vested right protected by the Interpretation Act and ordinary presumptions against retrospective statutes, therefore the plaintiff's action was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1986] 1 SCR 41
Parties
Appellant / Defendant (underlying): J. Walter Martin, M.D.; Respondent / Plaintiff (underlying): Isobel Margaret Perrie; Defendant (removed Suture in 1979): James W. Watson, M.D.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 January 1986
Procedural Posture
Medical Malpractice; Limitation of Actions; Statutory Interpretation / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (final Judgment)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgments below set aside; plaintiff's action against J. Walter Martin, M.D. is barred
Legal Topics
Retrospectivity, Vested Rights, Limitation Period, Medical Negligence
Source Language
english
Tort Statute of Limitations Statutory Interpretation Civil Procedure Retrospectivity Vested Rights Limitation Period Medical Negligence

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J. Walter Martin, M.D.

Appellant / Defendant (underlying)

Isobel Margaret Perrie

Respondent / Plaintiff (underlying)

James W. Watson, M.D.

Defendant (removed Suture in 1979)

Procedural Posture

Medical Malpractice; Limitation of Actions; Statutory Interpretation / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (final Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1974 Health Disciplines Act limitation provision (s.17) applies to causes of action already time‑barred under the Medical Act predecessor (s.43/48)
  2. 2 Whether s.17 operates retrospectively and thereby revives previously barred causes of action
  3. 3 Whether accrued limitation defences are protected by the Interpretation Act

Ratio Decidendi

The Health Disciplines Act s.17 did not apply to revive causes of action already barred under the Medical Act; the defendant's accrued limitation defence was a vested right protected by the Interpretation Act and ordinary presumptions against retrospective statutes, therefore the plaintiff's action was statute‑barred under the predecessor Medical Act (s.43/48).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgments below set aside; plaintiff's action against J. Walter Martin, M.D. is barred

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Judgments of the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Ontario set aside