Facts
Mr. Bahinipaty, a self-represented plaintiff and former doctor and lawyer, alleged that the defendant doctors deliberately, intentionally, and fraudulently misdiagnosed him with terminal brain cancer during his attendance at Vancouver General Hospital in early 2016. He asserted that the defendants treated him for a brain tumor when he actually suffered from a stroke, which resulted in an unnecessary craniotomy. The plaintiff made several other allegations, including negligence, false imprisonment, battery, intentional infliction of nervous shock, and elder and ethnic discrimination, and sought $1 million in damages. A 25-day trial against the defendant doctors was scheduled for January 2026 when the defendants brought an application for summary dismissal of the action.
Analysis
- Can the Application be decided on Summary Trial?
Justice Ormiston determined a summary trial under Rule 9-7(15) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules was appropriate. The plaintiff argued that a full trial was necessary because the claim involved complex facts, multiple parties, and allegations of civil fraud that required the Court to assess credibility.
Justice Ormiston found that while it was a complex case involving multiple parties there were threshold admissibility issues regarding the plaintiff’s entire evidentiary record, including the plaintiff’s attempt to use his own expertise as a medical opinion. Justice Ormiston noted that to the extent that the court will be called upon to assess the credibility and reliability of the evidence relevant to factual disputes, such issues can be determined based on the presented evidence but also the absence of evidence capable of advancing the plaintiff’s case. In this case, the plaintiff failed to call any independent expert evidence and had no intention of doing so. Ultimately, the Court ruled that a summary trial offered a proportionate resolution compared to a 25-day trial. - Did the Plaintiff Establish Civil Fraud?
To establish civil fraud, a plaintiff must prove the defendants made false representations or acted with “wicked indifference,” knowing their actions to be false and thereby causing injury. Justice Ormiston found the plaintiff’s tendered evidence failed to rationally support an inference that the defendants conspired to perform unnecessary surgery for financial gain. Conversely, evidence showed the neurosurgeon received a lump sum salary and did not financially benefit from the surgery.
Consequently, the judge ruled that remaining claims dependent on “wicked intentions”—such as false imprisonment and intentional infliction of mental suffering—must also fail. As the plaintiff signed a formal consent form, the battery claim failed, and the harassment and discrimination claims lacked a factual basis and fell outside the Court’s jurisdiction. - Did the Defendants breach the Standard of Care?
The plaintiff supported his negligence claims using his own research and opinions as a former physician. Justice Ormiston deemed this evidence inadmissible at trial under Rule 11-2(1) because the plaintiff intended it to advocate for his claim, meaning it lacked the required impartiality of an expert opinion. Therefore, the plaintiff could not prove the doctors breached the standard of care. In contrast, the defendants’ independent expert reports described the medical decision-making as reasonable and acceptable.
Conclusion
The plaintiff failed to prove the allegations against the defendant doctors, as such the Court dismissed the plaintiff’s application to prevent the summary trial and granted the defendants’ application to dismiss the claim.
A complex medical malpractice action with allegations of conspiracy and fraud cannot be proven based solely on a plaintiff’s own opinion and conjecture, even if the plaintiff is a former physician. A summary trial may be permitted in medical malpractice actions where the court is not required to assess credibility, can resolve factual disputes based on the evidence presented but also on the lack of evidence needed to support the plaintiff’s case, and a lengthy trial would not represent a just or proportionate resolution.
Interested in reading more case summaries like this one? Join OTLA’s Medical Malpractice Section today!
