Court of King’s Bench notes parties do not dispute relevance of addiction issues to damages
In a case where the plaintiff’s history of addiction was relevant to her claim for damages arising from injuries, the Alberta Court of King’s Bench has ordered her to produce two undertakings and unredacted records originating from two hospitals.
In Darling v Ewanchuk, 2026 ABKB 128, the plaintiff was impaired when she sustained injuries during a motor vehicle accident in late December 2014. Police took her into custody.
In December 2016, the plaintiff brought an action for over $20 million in damages, including about $2.5 million for lost future income. She asserted a brain injury and other injuries based on the defendants’ alleged negligence.
In 2020, the questioning of her mother and litigation representative revealed that the plaintiff had an addiction history, which led to her attending rehabilitation facilities at least twice, once around four years before the accident.
The mother could not provide all the details about her daughter’s health or treatments because she was an adult who was living separately from her mother at the relevant times.
The defendants alleged that the plaintiff’s medical history, including her addiction issues, was relevant to assessing damages. The plaintiff did not dispute the relevance of her addiction history to the damages claim.
When questioned about the answers to the undertakings, the plaintiff’s mother provided additional undertakings. The plaintiff’s counsel took certain undertakings under advisement and redacted some records produced.
Two undertakings remained outstanding. Three answers provided, involving the records from two hospitals, remained redacted.
The defendants applied for orders requiring the plaintiff to answer the undertakings taken under advisement during questioning and to produce the unredacted records provided as answers to the undertakings.
Production order
The Court of King’s Bench of Alberta ordered the plaintiff to engage in reasonable efforts to produce undertakings 62 and 94.
If the plaintiff could not produce the entire undertakings after exhausting all reasonable efforts, the court directed the plaintiff to disclose and describe those efforts fully. According to the court, the trial justice could make rulings and grant remedies if any missing records affected the ability to reach a just and appropriate outcome based on the evidence.
The court ordered the plaintiff to produce the records from the two hospitals in unredacted form, except to the extent they might impinge on the personal information of third parties.
According to the court, undertakings 62 and 94 pertained to relevant and material evidence, including medical consultation records concerning the plaintiff’s pre-incident health, possibly including her addiction issues and their effects on her income-earning capacity.
The court explained that this information would help the court narrow and define the issues and help the parties frankly assess their respective positions.
The court noted that the plaintiff’s income-earning capacity, among the other components of the damages claim, depended on the analysis of her past and present abilities and functionalities based on the health records.
As the plaintiff’s health was clearly in issue and the relevance of addiction issues was undisputed, the court saw a connection between the action and the entire health records.
The court concluded that producing the unredacted records would not create inefficiency and would reveal the reasons for the plaintiff’s hospital visits.
