Counsel's inaction led to a 16-month gap before the renewal application was filed
The Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories has approved the renewal of a medical malpractice claim against the doctor and the hospital involved in a tragic drug toxicity case.
In Jeske et al. v Stanton Territorial Hospital et al., 2024 NWTSC 10, the court has ruled in favour of Cindy Jeske, administrator of the Estate of Spencer Jeske, allowing for the renewal of a statement of claim against Dr. Fiona Aiston, Stanton Territorial Hospital, and the Northwest Territories Health and Social Service Authority. The claim, which centred around the tragic death of Spencer Jeske due to multiple drug toxicity in August 2018, had faced opposition from Dr. Aiston regarding its renewal.
Filed on August 28, 2020, the claim alleged that Dr. Aiston, among others, played a role in the treatment that led to Jeske's death. However, difficulties in serving Dr. Aiston with the claim prompted the need for its renewal under Rule 13 of the Supreme Court's Rules, a request that Dr. Aiston contested. Despite the challenge, the court found sufficient reason to grant the renewal, citing no specific evidence of prejudice due to the delay.
The case's progression was significantly delayed, partly due to Jeske's counsel's issues and an admitted "block" regarding moving the matter forward upon learning of Aiston's opposition to the renewal. This inaction led to a 16-month gap before the renewal application was filed, raising concerns over the potential impact on witness availability and the memories of those involved.
Dr. Aiston, who has been in Yellowknife since 2013, countered that the delay had negatively impacted her ability to recall the events clearly, emphasizing her reliance on written records and expressing concerns over the availability of key witnesses due to staff turnover. Nonetheless, the court found these concerns insufficient to demonstrate actual prejudice.
In granting the renewal, the court highlighted the potential injustice of denying the application, particularly given that Jeske would be penalized for her lawyer's inaction. Moreover, allowing the renewal aligns with the interests of justice, avoiding multiple actions involving the same facts and thereby serving the administration of justice more effectively.
However, Jeske was not awarded costs for the application, primarily due to the delay caused by her counsel's handling of the matter and failure to comply with pre-hearing brief submission rules. The court emphasized the requirement of expeditious conduct of litigation and the consequences of failing to adhere to procedural requirements.
The ruling opened the door for Jeske to proceed with her claim, seeking accountability for the circumstances leading to her son's untimely death.
