Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Extension of time to file the application for leave to appeal due to a two-day delay.

• Authority of the case management judge to remove witnesses from the applicants’ list based on relevance and proportionality.

• Determination of the necessity and usefulness of eleven proposed witnesses.

• Setting of the hearing duration, specifically the allocation of four days to the applicants and two days to the respondent.

• Application of the principles of proportionality and necessity under the Code of Civil Procedure.

• Dismissal of the application for leave to appeal and awarding of legal costs to the respondent.

Facts of the case

Peter George Sandor and Margit Szabo Sandor filed a $20 million lawsuit against Santé Québec, acting in right of Sir Mortimer B. Davis Jewish General Hospital, in September 2020. The case concerns medical liability and, as of the date of the appellate decision, had not yet proceeded to a hearing on the merits, despite requiring judicial intervention on several occasions to facilitate trial readiness.

Procedural background and issues raised

During a case management conference before the Superior Court, the presiding judge addressed the parties’ inability to agree on a joint request for setting down the case for trial and judgment. The applicants had indicated in their request the existence of a forced intervention, such as a call in warranty or impleading, although no such request had been made. The judge also noted the applicants’ intention to call several witnesses and expressed concern about the relevance of eleven of them, some of whom were to be called only to produce documents whose origin was undisputed. The judge, applying the principle of proportionality under the Code of Civil Procedure, ordered that the names of these eleven witnesses be struck from the list and set the hearing duration at seven days, with four days allotted to the applicants for their evidence, two days to the respondent, and the remainder for oral submissions.

Appeal and legal arguments

The applicants filed their application for leave to appeal and notice of appeal two working days late. The Court considered the explanation provided by Margit Szabo Sandor for the delay satisfactory and granted the requested extension. The applicants argued that the judge ruled on the relevance of eleven witnesses without this issue being on the agenda, that their right to present relevant evidence was denied, and that the time allotted for their hearing was insufficient.

Court’s analysis and discussion of procedural law

The Court of Appeal examined whether the procedural decision warranted appellate intervention. It found that the judge had properly applied the guiding principles of procedure, particularly proportionality as set out in article 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that the judge had the authority to inquire into the relevance of witnesses and to set the hearing duration. The Court noted that the total time requested by the applicants in their draft requests was similar to what was granted. The Court found no apparent weakness in the impugned judgment and concluded that the proposed appeal was doomed to failure.

Ruling and outcome

The Court of Appeal granted the extension of the time limit to file the notice of appeal and application for leave to appeal, acknowledged their filing, and dismissed the application for leave to appeal. Legal costs were awarded to the respondent, Santé Québec, acting in right of Sir Mortimer B. Davis Jewish General Hospital. No specific amount for costs was stated, and no damages were awarded at this stage, as the underlying claim remains unresolved.