Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Ms. Knull's application for summary judgment in a medical malpractice action was dismissed for failing to demonstrate that no genuine issue exists for trial.

• No expert evidence regarding the standard of care was tendered, which the court identified as one of several genuine issues requiring resolution at trial.

• Uncertified hospital records appended to the plaintiff's affidavits were challenged as inadmissible hearsay, undermining her evidentiary foundation.

• A potential limitation defence remains unresolved, as further document production and disclosure is necessary to determine whether such a defence applies to Ms. Knull's hand injury claim.

• IHA contended that physicians are independent contractors and that the Hospital is not vicariously liable for their negligence, though the court did not rule on this defence.

• The plaintiff's reliance on legal authorities largely addressing informed consent, battery, and causation did not support the summary judgment question before the court.

The hand injury and initial hospital treatment

On January 13, 2023, Kyla Ashley Lauren Knull presented at East Kootenay Regional Hospital in Cranbrook, British Columbia, reporting that the previous day she had accidentally stabbed her hand with a knife. The uncertified hospital records show that Ms. Knull was admitted early in the morning, assessed by a doctor a few hours later, given a tetanus booster, prescribed three days of medication, and told to follow up within 48 hours with her family physician for any evolving tendon or nerve injury. Ms. Knull subsequently sought further medical attention from the Hospital, was referred by a family physician to a specialist, and seen by the specialist.

The specialist's findings and alleged delayed diagnosis

In Ms. Knull's first and second affidavits, she deposes that four months post-injury, the specialist told her he suspected she had a partially severed nerve. The specialist indicated that he suspected "potential for a severed or partially severed nerve" and that "had timely diagnosis and intervention been pursued, the window to repair the harm likely would have been possible, but at this time it would be too late to intervene." Ms. Knull's materials show that on May 16, 2023, she met with another physician to discuss the specialist's findings. That physician noted a "Partial tendon injury - chronic" and "left thumb partial tendon injury." Ms. Knull alleges that the Hospital and IHA were both negligent, because of which she says she has suffered ongoing impairment, muscle loss, and permanent deformity.

Additional claims of inadequate treatment

In addition to Ms. Knull's claim concerning her hand injury, she has three other claims alleging that she received dismissive or inadequate treatment at the Hospital in relation to post-operative pain management in October 2023 following laparoscopic surgery, a miscarriage in March 2025, and multiple visits for cardiac symptoms. Notably, Ms. Knull has not sued any of the physicians involved in her care. IHA says the Hospital is not a proper party to these proceedings because the Hospital is not an independent legal entity.

The plaintiff's legal theories and sought relief

Ms. Knull commenced the action against IHA and the Hospital by notice of civil claim filed May 20, 2025. She pleads negligence; failure to meet informed consent standards; breach of statutory duties under the Hospital Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 200 and the Health Professions Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 183; and violation of institutional policy and diagnostic standards for nerve injuries. Ms. Knull sought general damages for pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life; aggravated damages for the dismissive and negligent treatment experienced; damages for permanent disfigurement and loss of function in her left hand; costs of the action; and such further and other relief as the court may deem just. Ms. Knull says the limitation period did not begin to run until October 2024, which is when she says the injury and its full implications were reasonably discoverable.

The summary judgment application and the defendant's response

Ms. Knull applied pursuant to Rule 9-6 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules for summary judgment on her entire claim or, alternatively, summary judgment on the issue of liability only. IHA filed a response to civil claim on June 13, 2025, and opposed the application on several grounds: that Ms. Knull had not alleged a sufficient factual or legal basis in her notice of civil claim or notice of application; that further document production and disclosure is necessary; that Ms. Knull had not established that IHA's defence is not viable; that the issues are not straightforward; and that no expert evidence regarding the standard of care had been tendered. IHA also raised the position that the Hospital does not employ the physicians and that they are independent contractors who are directly liable to their patients, and the Hospital is not vicariously liable for their negligence. IHA further argued that loss of confidence in the medical system is not a compensable injury under Canadian tort law, and that breach of statute does not in itself give rise to damages nor does it necessarily constitute negligence.

Evidentiary deficiencies identified by the court

The Honourable Justice B. Smith identified significant evidentiary gaps in Ms. Knull's application. IHA's material provides a factual basis demonstrating the need to obtain further document production and disclosure. Ms. Knull has not provided the specialist's complete file, certified hospital records, or any expert opinion reports. Despite IHA's repeated requests, Ms. Knull has not executed an authorization for IHA to request her medical records from third-party record holders. The medical records Ms. Knull provided are uncertified, and IHA challenged them on the basis that in uncertified form they are hearsay and therefore inadmissible for truth of content. The court noted that Ms. Knull has the onus to ensure the records are admissible for truth of content, and so far she has failed to do so. The court also declined to treat a letter from Ms. Knull's family doctor, written in support of her application for disability benefits, as expert evidence in the context of this application. Concerning Ms. Knull's three claims alleging dismissive or inadequate treatment, the court found she has not provided evidence to establish compensable damage resulting from the alleged treatment. The court further noted that Ms. Knull's position is not supported by the primary legal authorities she refers to, as none of them inform the issue the court must determine on this application.

The court's ruling and outcome

Justice B. Smith dismissed Ms. Knull's application for summary judgment on her entire claim as well as her application for summary judgment on the issue of liability only, finding that it is not manifestly clear that there is no genuine issue for trial. The court identified several genuine issues for trial, primary among them being whether IHA has a limitation defence and whether there was any breach of the standard of care, and concluded that it is not clear that IHA is "bound to lose." The court noted it was not necessary to consider IHA's alternative submission that the action ought to be dismissed. IHA, as the successful party in defending the application, was awarded costs at Scale B. No exact monetary amount was determined, as this decision addressed only the summary judgment application and the underlying action remains to proceed through further litigation.