Another doctor faced bias claim relating to medical examination performed for injury suit
In proceedings where a doctor alleged unprofessional conduct in connection with another doctor’s medical examination for vehicular injury lawsuits, the Alberta Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal an order restricting court access under ss. 23–23.1 of Alberta’s Judicature Act, 2000.
Dr. Bains initiated lawsuits relating to his involvement in three motor vehicle incidents between Mar. 10, 2017, and May 30, 2017. A trial judge found that he failed to establish his injuries on a balance of probabilities.
In 2021, Dr. Bains sued the lawyers representing the defendants and insurers in the motor vehicle suits. In 2022, the Alberta Court of King’s Bench struck the proceeding for being abusive.
In 2020 and 2021, Dr. Bains commenced two other suits. One, also initiated by his wife, was against an insurance company.
The other suit, filed against Dr. Yardley and Assessmed Inc., asserted biased, negligent, and unprofessional conduct arising from a medical examination performed as part of the motor vehicle suits.
Specifically, Dr. Bains alleged that Dr. Yardley misdiagnosed him and recklessly found no injuries suffered during the vehicular accidents. Dr. Bains claimed that Dr. Yardley’s medical examination and report inflicted intentional suffering and intended to harm him medically, socially, and financially.
The court indefinitely stayed both suits based on the rule that only one lawsuit could emerge from the alleged tortious acts.
In May 2022, the defendants in the motor vehicle suits filed a vexatious litigant application under ss. 23–23.1 of the Judicature Act. The court deferred ruling on this application until the conclusion of the motor vehicle proceedings.
In 2023, Dr. Kaur, who was Dr. Bains’ wife, and their daughters brought a claim against the defendants and insurers involved in the motor vehicle suits. The court indefinitely stayed this claim as well.
Before the Calgary Police Service, Dr. Bains filed criminal complaints asserting illegal conduct by a justice, a former associate chief justice, and numerous lawyers, defendants, and witnesses involved in the motor vehicle litigation.
Court access restrictions
Last Jan. 27, in Bains v Day, 2025 ABKB 50, the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta imposed a permanent restraining order on the Bains in connection with 19 individuals, including Dr. Yardley of Assessmed Inc.
To address the Bains’ litigation practices and bring the proceedings to a timely end, the court awarded lump sum costs of $15,000 to Dr. Yardley and $5,000 to Assessmed, among others awarded costs.
Given the pattern of abusive litigation, the chambers judge deemed it necessary to issue global court access restrictions, which would require Dr. Bains to obtain leave to commence or continue any litigation before the Court of King’s Bench.
The applicants – Dr. Bains, his wife, and their three children – applied for permission to appeal the court access restriction order. They contended that the restrictions breached their Charter rights and that the court order lacked sufficient justification. If their application were to succeed, the applicants sought to stay the order pending appeal.
Permission denied
On Dec. 12, in Bains v Adam, 2025 ABCA 407, the Court of Appeal of Alberta dismissed the application for permission to appeal the court access restriction order, which also disposed of the stay application.
The appeal court determined that the applicants failed to establish that the case met the relevant requirements.
First, the appeal court saw no important question of law or precedent that engaged a matter of policy, principle, or law with potential precedential value and that required more than a disagreement with a factual interpretation or discretionary exercise.
The appeal court pointed out that there was no constitutional right to file frivolous or vexatious suits. The appeal court noted that the court access restriction order did not prevent the applicants from bringing legitimate actions aligning with the procedure described in the order.
The appeal court saw no evidence that the applicants properly provided notice to the federal attorney general, which they would need to strike down s. 23 of the Judicature Act as unconstitutional.
Second, the appeal court saw no reasonable prospects of success. The appeal court held that the applicants failed to meaningfully articulate the rationale for their argument that the chambers judge lacked justification for issuing the court access restriction order.
The appeal court noted that the judge extensively explained his decision and the applicants’ pattern of litigation conduct.
Finally, given the history of litigation misconduct, the appeal court concluded that allowing the applicants to appeal would create a significant risk of undue prejudice and delay for the other parties, subject them to continuing misconduct, and compromise the finality of the proceedings.
