2015 QCCQ 10573, 2015 QCCQ 10573

Thorne c. Laplante 2015 QCCQ 10573 COURT OF QUÉBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF GATINEAU TOWN OF GATINEAU Civil Division No: 550-32-022256-140 DATE: October 30, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE SERGE LAURIN, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ Angela Thorne Applicant v.

André Laplante Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT Rendered orally at the hearing and edited ______________________________________________________________________ INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] Miss Thorne is suing Dr. Laplante for malpractice and is claiming 7 000 $ in damages. QUESTION IN DISPUTE [ 2 ] The Court has to decide if Dr. Laplante is liable for a medical malpractice or was negligent toward his patient and if so, the amount in damages that can be awarded to Mrs. Thorne. THE FACTS [ 3 ] On December 8 th , 2011, Mrs. Thorne meets Dr.

Laplante regarding a tooth pain, fibromyalgia and temporomandibular joint. Dr. Laplante explains his diagnosis and suggests a treatment. [ 4 ] Mrs. Thorne receives her first treatment on December 12, 2011, followed by another one on December 16, 2011. [ 5 ] Mrs. Thorne then attends Dr. Laplante's clinic on May 10, 14 and 16, 2012 for neck problems that occurred in the last month. [ 6 ] It takes another 16 months before she comes for other treatments on September 10 and 17, 2013. Following these treatments, Mrs. Thorne complains of chronic tension headaches. [ 7 ] Mrs.

Thorne then visits the Hull's Hospital for an encephalogram and the medical report states a high suspicion of epilepsy, but does not mention Dr. Laplante or any negligence. [ 8 ] Mrs. Thorne is then referred to the Montfort Hospital for a magnetic resonance (MRI) and no diagnostic is established nor any link between her suffering and Dr. Laplante's actions. [ 9 ] . Finally, Mrs. Thorne is referred to a neurologist Dr. Hallé, who diagnoses, on September 10, 2015, chronic tension headaches. Again, there are no references to Dr. Laplante and his work.

ANALYSIS [ 10 ] In the Civil code of Quebec [1] (C.c.Q.),

section 2803 states that a person wishing to assert a right shall prove the facts on which his claim is based. [ 11 ]

Section 2804 ( C.c.Q. ) states that the evidence is sufficient if it renders the existence of a fact more probable than its non- existence, unless the law requires more convincing proof. [ 12 ] Mrs. Thorne established that she had a contract with Dr. Laplante which she mainly consulted for tooth pain and fibromyalgia. Dr. Laplante accepted to treat her and Mrs. Thorne paid for her sessions. [ 13 ] Mrs. Thorne has to establish the fault or malpractice and that her injuries were directly caused by Dr. Laplante's actions. [ 14 ] Unfortunately in this file, the Court does not have such evidence and Mrs.

Thorne did not produce any expert report demonstrating that Dr. Laplante was negligent or did a malpractice. [ 15 ] The Court concludes that Mrs. Thorne did not establish, on the balance of probabilities, the fault by Dr. Laplante or that his negligence caused her actual injuries. . FOR THOSE GROUNDS, THE COURT: [ 16 ] REJECTS the application, with costs. __________________________________ Serge Laurin, J.c.Q. Date of hearing: October 26, 2015