Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Defendants moved to strike Shannon Plante's statement of claim on jurisdictional, cause-of-action, and abuse-of-process grounds.
   
• Justice Muszynski found the Superior Court retained jurisdiction because Plante was not seeking a determination of her SABS benefit entitlement.
   
• Direct claims in fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation were struck since Plante herself never relied on the allegedly falsified assessment reports.
   
• Allegations that Dynamic Functional Solutions Inc. and the individual defendants altered medical reports to Economical's benefit were found capable of grounding a claim in the tort of unlawful means.
   
• Claims for inducing breach of contract and negligence, including against Dr. Aladetoyinbo, survived the motion given unresolved questions about expert witness immunity.
   
• Trial of the action was deferred pending final determination of Plante's SABS entitlements at the Licence Appeal Tribunal and Divisional Court.
   

Facts of the case

Shannon Plante, who has cerebral palsy, bi-polar affective disorder, depression, and a mental delay, sued Dynamic Functional Solutions Inc. (DFS), two of its employees (Meggin Fitzpatrick and Laura Florentino-Radzio), occupational therapist Janelle Mackinnon, and psychiatrist Dr. Kehinde Adekunle Aladetoyinbo following a motor vehicle collision on May 30, 2019 [the reasons elsewhere refer to "the collision of May 20, 2019," an inconsistency in the source document]. Plante applied to her automobile insurer, Economical Insurance, for statutory accident benefits, and Economical retained DFS to coordinate medical examinations under section 44 of the SABS. Mackinnon's initial October 16, 2020 draft report concluded Plante required 700 minutes of attendant care weekly at a cost of $818.59, reflecting a "greater level of dependency" after the accident; the statement of claim alleges DFS pressured Mackinnon to revise this to a "same level of dependency" finding and later edited the report to eliminate attendant care costs entirely. A separate report by Dr. Aladetoyinbo, prepared in connection with Plante's claim for a catastrophic impairment designation, is alleged to have been substantially altered by DFS, including the insertion of a Global Assessment of Functioning score without supporting analysis. Plante alleges these altered reports caused Economical to deny her benefits, and she seeks costs thrown away from related Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) proceedings, general damages, and primarily punitive damages for the defendants' alleged conduct. The defendants brought a joint motion to strike the claim without leave to amend.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The motion centered on section 280 of the Insurance Act, which the defendants argued gives the LAT exclusive jurisdiction over disputes concerning entitlement to statutory accident benefits, subject to appeal or judicial review only. The defendants also relied on Rules 21.01(1), 21.01(3), and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to argue the claim was ultra vires the court's jurisdiction, disclosed no reasonable cause of action, and was an abuse of process. Plante's claim referenced, without citing specific sections, the Regulated Health Professions Act, the Health Professions Procedural Code, the Medicine Act, and the Professional Conduct Regulation in support of allegations against Dr. Aladetoyinbo.

Reasoning and analysis

Justice Muszynski distinguished the defendants' authorities, Stegenga v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company and Yang v. Co-operators General Insurance Company, on the basis that both involved claims where the substance of the dispute concerned entitlement to or payment of benefits. By contrast, Plante did not allege wrongdoing by Economical and did not seek a benefits determination or payment, but instead sought damages from non-insurer parties for allegedly fabricating results to protect their business relationship with the insurer. The court held that a mechanism must exist for pursuing non-insurer tortfeasors regardless of the SABS context, and found it retained jurisdiction. Turning to the pleaded causes of action, the court struck the direct claims in civil fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation because the alleged false statements were made to and relied upon by Economical, not Plante, making the relationship too remote to ground those claims. However, the court found the same allegations could support a claim in the tort of unlawful means, since the misrepresentations to Economical caused harm to Plante as a third party. The claim for inducing breach of contract was allowed to stand, as Plante had pleaded a valid insurance contract, the defendants' awareness of it, and resulting damage. On negligence, the court declined to resolve the applicability of expert witness immunity at the pleadings stage, noting the Divisional Court's decision in Worthman v. Assessmed Inc. left open the possibility that no immunity applies to assessors retained under the SABS. Claims against the individual DFS employees and Dr. Aladetoyinbo were also allowed to proceed. On abuse of process, the court found no improper relitigation of the LAT disputes, since Plante was not seeking benefits or equivalent damages, though it held that final determination of her SABS entitlements should occur before trial of the civil action given their potential relevance to damages.

Ruling and overall outcome

Justice Muszynski dismissed the jurisdictional challenge, struck the direct claims in fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation with leave to amend to plead the tort of unlawful means, and ordered that any amended claim specify the legislative provisions relied upon. The remainder of the motion to strike was dismissed, leaving intact Plante's claims in unlawful means, inducing breach of contract, and negligence, including against the individual defendants and Dr. Aladetoyinbo. The action was permitted to proceed, but trial was deferred until Plante's final entitlements under the SABS are determined through the ongoing LAT and Divisional Court proceedings. The outcome was mixed: the defendants succeeded in having the direct misrepresentation claims struck and in deferring trial, while Plante succeeded in preserving her jurisdiction and her remaining causes of action. No monetary award was made in this decision; costs of the motion were left to be resolved by agreement or, failing that, by written submissions due August 21, 2026 (Plante) and September 4, 2026 (moving parties).