Defendants argued references to discrimination were incidental and immaterial to negligence claim
The British Columbia Supreme Court has ruled that the fact that the evidence establishing medical negligence could delve into racial stereotypes did not divest it of the jurisdiction to hear the proceedings, rather than the Human Rights Tribunal.
In Morrison v. Northern Health, 2025 BCSC 1816, the plaintiffs were partners whose child was stillborn upon delivery. The mother had received medical care for her labour and delivery in January 2021.
In February 2021, the plaintiffs filed a notice of civil claim seeking damages from the defendants – including five physicians, three hospitals, and a nurse – based on medical negligence. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants fell short of the required duty of care.
The claim made references to racial stereotypes relating to the manner in which the defendants treated the mother.
The hospital defendants responded to the civil claim on Mar. 5, 2021. The defendant physicians filed their response on Mar. 22, 2021.
The plaintiffs amended their notice of civil claim in March 2022. The hospital defendants filed an amended response to the civil claim in August 2022.
The defendant physicians amended their response to the civil claim in October 2022 and filed a notice of application on Dec. 19, 2024. They requested orders to strike portions of the notice of civil claim and dismiss the father’s claim.
The hospital defendants filed a notice of application on Dec. 24, 2024. They sought to strike or dismiss the father’s claim or the claim against the defendant nurse.
The defendants did not seek to strike or dismiss the negligence claim. However, they wanted to strike the references to racial stereotypes from the pleadings. They alleged that these references were incidental and immaterial to the negligence claim.
The plaintiffs consented to an order dismissing the father’s claim but opposed the rest of the relief that the defendant physicians and the hospital defendants requested.
Portions not stricken
The Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed the father’s personal injury claims and declined leave for the plaintiffs to further amend their amended civil claim to include a claim under BC’s Family Compensation Act, 1996.
The court refused to issue an order regarding the nurse and denied the defendant physicians’ and the hospital defendants’ applications to dismiss or strike portions of the plaintiffs’ pleadings.
First, the court rejected the father’s personal injury claims upon noting that the parties agreed to such dismissal.
Second, the court declined to permit the plaintiffs to amend their amended notice of civil claim to include a Family Compensation Act claim, given that the parties had agreed that they were no longer pursuing such a claim.
Third, the court refused to issue an order concerning the nurse because the hospital defendants made no relevant submissions. The court noted that the parties could file a consent order dismissing the claim against the nurse and that the parties did not challenge the fact that the nurse was an inappropriate party to the litigation.
Fourth, the court dismissed the defendant physicians’ and the hospital defendants’ applications to dismiss or strike portions of the plaintiffs’ pleadings.
Based on the case law, the court accepted that the plaintiffs’ claim would fall within the Human Rights Tribunal’s exclusive jurisdiction and deprive the court of jurisdiction if the claim solely alleged racial discrimination.
However, the court pointed out that the plaintiffs asserted that racial stereotypes contributed to the negligent care of the mother, rather than seeking damages for racial discrimination as a stand-alone order.
The court saw a genuine issue for determination because it was not plain and obvious that the plaintiffs’ pleadings lacked a reasonable cause of action or prospect of success.
The court noted that the parties should bear their own application costs due to their mixed success.
