00:00High Court Judge Frank C. Passard was called upon to decide whether a claim filed outside the statutory four-year
00:07limitation period should be allowed to continue in the matter of Hollis Williams v. the Southwest Regional Health Authority.
00:16The claimant underwent surgery in October 2015 after sustaining CHOP injuries to his left hand. He alleges the treatment was
00:25negligent and resulted in the loss of the use of his ring and little fingers.
00:31Medical assessments later recorded 100% digit impairment to both fingers and a 10% permanent partial disability.
00:41But before the case could even be heard on its merits, the court had to determine whether it was filed
00:47too late.
00:48Under Section 5 of the Limitation of Certain Actions Act, personal injury claims must be brought within four years from
00:56the date the claimant first acquired knowledge of the cause of action.
01:00Justice C. Passard ruled that the claimant must be deemed to have had that knowledge by October 15, 2016.
01:08Because of legislative intervention during the COVID-19 emergency which suspended limitation periods, the four-year deadline was effectively extended
01:18to November 18, 2022.
01:21However, the claim was filed on August 18, 2025, three years and one day outside the extended limitation period.
01:31Ordinarily, that would end the matter.
01:33But Justice C. Passard emphasized that Section 9 of the Act gives the court a broad discretion.
01:39He described it as, quote,
01:49The judge said the pivotal question was whether it is fair and just in all circumstances to require the respondent
01:57or defendant to meet the claim on its merits, notwithstanding the delay.
02:02Importantly, he warned that the court must be mindful not to allow limitation laws to operate as a gratuitous windfall
02:11defense.
02:12In examining the reasons for the delay, the court accepted that the claimant had limited financial resources and relied on
02:20legal aid.
02:21His file was reassigned multiple times before being stabilized with his present attorney in 2023.
02:27The judge noted the unprecedented nature and impact of the novel coronavirus pandemic and accepted that medical and legal services
02:37were severely disrupted.
02:39He concluded the delay was not the product of indifference or tactical advantage, but rather the consequence of latent medical
02:48knowledge,
02:49dependence on state-funded legal assistance, repeated administrative reassignment, beyond the claimant's control,
02:56and an unprecedented global pandemic.
02:59The court then addressed a broader issue, access to justice.
03:03In one of the most striking parts of the ruling, Justice C. Passard declared,
03:08One's impecuniosity and resultant dependence upon assistance from the state should not operate as a bar,
03:15and each and every citizen should have equal and equitable recourse to access to justice.
03:21He continued,
03:22The court does not only serve the wealthy or the connected, it serves all citizens.
03:28And added,
03:29Irrespective of their circumstance, the court must ensure that each and every citizen is afforded an opportunity to have reasonable
03:36access to the judicial system.
03:39Turning to the health authorities' arguments,
03:41the defendant claimed it would be prejudiced because doctors could not be located and certain accident and emergency records were
03:48missing.
03:49But the judge was not persuaded.
03:52Justice C. Passard also observed that the authority had not provided sufficient detail about its record-keeping systems or efforts
03:59made to locate missing personnel and documents,
04:02balancing the competing prejudice.
04:05The judge ultimately ruled,
04:07It would be equitable to extend the limitation period so as to permit the applicant or claimant to pursue his
04:14case of medical negligence.
04:16The application was granted.
04:18The claim will now proceed to trial.
04:20Costs were awarded in favor of the claimant.
04:23Urvashi Tawari Rupnirai, TV6 News.
Comments