‘couRT SUEREM Some Nov 22 206 WESTMINSTER NeW ISTRY 185477 NEW WESTMINSTER REGISTRY a a) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN JUNKO IDA PLAINTIFF AND: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA as the MINISTRY OF HEALTH and KAREN NIXON. DEFENDANTS, NOTICE OF CIVIL CLAIM This action has been started by the plaintiff for the relief set out in Part 2 below. Ifyou intend to respond to this action, you or your lawyer must (a) file @ response to civil claim in Form 2 in the above-named registry of this court within the time for response to civil claim described below, and (b) serve a copy of the filed response to civil claim on the plaintif. Ifyou intend to make a counterclaim, you or your lawyer must (a) file a response to civil claim in Form 2 and a counterclaim in Form 3 in the above-named registry of this court within the time for response to civil claim described below, and (b) serve a copy of the filed response to civil claim and counterctaim on the plaintiff and on any new parties named in the counterclaim, 2298 on woe. sora TORsTST | | | i } | | | | } | | | I | |a JUDGMENT MAY BE PRONOUNCED AGAINST YOU IF YOU FAIL to file the response to civil claim within the time for response to civil claim described below. A response to civil claim must be filed and served on the pl TIME FOR RESPONSE TO CIVIL CLAIM if, (a) __ifyou reside anywhere in Canada, within 21 days after the date on which a copy of, the filed notice of civil claim was served on you, (b) __ifyoureside in the United States of America, within 35 days after the date on which a copy of the filed notice of civil claim was served on you, © __ if you reside elsewhere, within 49 days after the date on which a copy of the filed notice of civil claim was served on you, or (d) ifthe time for response to civil claim has been set by order of the court, within that time. CLAIM OF THE PLAINTIFF Part 1: STATEMENT OF FACTS A 1 2. 3. 4 The Parties The Plaintiff, JUNKO IIDA, is a real estate agent and resides at #12 - 2501 161A Street, Surrey, British Columbia, V3S 7Y6. ‘The Defendant, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIAas the MINISTRY OF HEALTH ("HER MAJESTY’), is responsible for providing, inter alia, ambulance and emergency health services within the Province of British Columbia and has an address for service at 1515 Blanshard Street, Victoria, British Columbia V8W 3c8. ‘The Defendant, KAREN NIXON (‘NIXON’), is a 911 emergency medical dispatcher and/or call taker and whose address for service is unknown to the Plaintiff. Atal material times to the cause of action herein, the Defendant, HER MAJESTY, provides, inter alia, ambulance and emergency health services to the public through the British3 Columbia Emergency Health Services ("EHS") pursuant to the Emergency and Health Services Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, .182 and which falls under the jurisdiction of the Provincial Health Services Authority. EHS provides pre-hospital emergency services, inter-facility patient transfers and operates the British Columbia Ambulance Service. Atall material times to the cause of action herein, the Defendant, NIXON, was an employee, agent and/or servant of the Defendant, HER MAJESTY, and/or EHS, and worked as 911 emergency medical dispatcher and/or call taker. tall material times to the cause of action herein, EHS was, and is, responsible for, inter alia, training, educating, instructing, monitoring and/or supervising 911 emergency medical dispatchers and/or call takers on how to, inter alia, intake, handle, process and/or conduct 911 emergency telephone calls and the EHS dispatch system. EHS Dispatch System During the course of a medical emergency, a telephone call can be made to EHS by dialling 911 to request ambulance services so as to transfer the person to a medical facility, hospital and/or healthcare provider. EHS uses an emergency dispatch computer software system, known as "ProQA”, which guides and instructs 911 emergency dispatchers and/or call takers during the course of an 911 emergency call in collecting information from the caller, obtaining the patients’ medical condition or status and choosing the appropriate emergency dispatch level for ambulance services. ProQA utilizes the Advanced Medical Priority Dispatch System (‘AMPDS") to triage 911 emergency calls and a customized resource allocation plan to allocate first responders and paramedics so as to dispatch the appropriate aid for medical emergencies. The AMPDS. generates a “Code” based on the information the 911 emergency medical dispatcher and/or call taker enters and/or inputs into the ProQA system during a 911 emergency call. The Code indicates the level of priority to assign to an ambulance unit fo the scene.10. 1". 12. 13. 14, 15, 16. 17, For instance, a Code 3 ambulance unit is assigned to matters such as, inter alia, heavy bleeding, obstructed breathing, loss of consciousness, severe head pain, falls and accidents, neck pain, head injury with disorientation and spinal injuries. ‘A Code 3 dispatch enables ambulance drivers to proceed with their emergency sirens and lights on so as to be able to travel at a faster rate of speed to the scene of an incident, whereas a Code 2 assigns a basic life support ambulance unit without emergenoy sirens and lights on and which observes the rules of the road. A Code 3 dispatch assigns a closer ambulance unit to the scene of an incident and is for acute patient conditions, whereas a Code 2 dispatch is for non-life threatening patient conditions, 911 Emergency Call Time Line & Wrongful Death (On December 13, 2014 at or around 2:00 a.m. the Plaintiff's 15 year old son, Dario Bartoli (‘Dario’) and a friend, Matt Escobedo (’Matt"), were walking home after attending a McDonald's restaurant located approximately 20 minutes away from his family residence, when they were violently assaulted by a group of unknown males at or near Bakerview Park located at 18" Avenue and 154" Street, Surrey, British Columbia. During the assault Dario was stabbed several times in the abdominal area and struck on the head with a crowbar. He was seriously injured and bleeding profusely. ‘After the perpetrators of the assault fled the scene, Dario and Matt went to a nearby residence located at 15663 - 18" Avenue, Surrey, British Columbia for help. The resident of the house, James Smith, called 911 at 2:43:27 a.m. for assistance. At or about 2:43:44 a.m. James Smith called the police for help. Ator about 2:45:28 a.m. the Surrey RCMP were dispatched to the scene.18, 19. 20. 21 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Se At or about 2:46:21 a.m. the Surrey RCMP dispatch center called EHS requesting ambulance services but the call was placed on hold for two minutes and 47 seconds. Ator about 2:48 a.m, the Surrey RCMP arrived at the scene. At or about 2:48:49 a.m. the EHS 911 emergency medical dispatcher and/or call taker came on the line and the Surrey RCMP dispatch center advised that ambulances services were required as there were two young males bleeding heavily from injuries sustained from a crowbar to the head. Ator about 2:49 a.m. the Surrey RCMP dispatch center was again placed on hold with the EHS 911 emergency medical dispatcher and/or call taker. Ator about 2:49:43 a.m. while still on hold the Surrey RCMP dispatch center made a direct call to EHS on a telephone line not accessible to the public and spoke to the Defendant, NIXON, advising her that two young males had been assaulted with a crowbar and bleeding heavily. ‘At or about 2:50:43 a.m. the Defendant, NIXON, erroneously entered and/or input into the ProQA system an assault of a single unknown male who was conscious and breathing. As such, the AMPDS generated a Code 2 Ator about 2:51:25 a.m. the Surrey RCMP dispatch center advised the EHS 911 emergency medical dispatcher and/or call taker that one of the young males appeared to be pale and was not doing well At or about 2:51:45 a.m. an ambulance unit was dispatched to the scene from Surrey Memorial Hospital on a Code 2 response. At or about 2:51:48 a.m. the Surrey RCMP dispatch center requested that the EHS 911 ‘emergency medical dispatcher and/or call taker dispatch a Code 3. ambulance to the scene.27. 28. 29, 30. 31 32. 33. 34, 36. 37. 6 At or about 2:52:22 a.m. the Surrey RCMP dispatch center were again placed on hold by the EHS 911 emergency medical dispatcher and/or call taker. Ator about 2:52:58 a.m. the Surrey RCMP dispatch center advised the EHS 911 emergency medical ispatcher and/or call taker that Dario was conscious and breathing but did not look very well and again repeated a request for a Code 3 ambulance to attend the scene. Ator about 2:53:11 a.m. information was entered and/or input into the EHS dispatch system, to indicate that a Code 3 ambulance unit was requested to the scene for a pale male with no other details. At or about 2:58:58 a.m. the fire department arrived at the scene. At or about 3:04:19 a.m. the Surrey RCMP dispatch center again called EHS as to the whereabouts of the Code 3 ambulance unit as it stil had not arrived at the scene. At or about 3:10:15 a.m. the EHS ambulance unit arrived at the scene. Ator about 3:21:57 a.m. the ambulance unit departed the scene and arrived at Peace Arch Hospital at 3:25 a.m. Between 2:53:11 a.m, and 3:10:15 a.m. the EHS dispatch system continue to generate a Code 2 response despite the requests for a Code 3 ambulance unit to the scene. The Surrey RCMP dispatch center had called EHS at least four times to update the condition of the two assault victims and to request a Code 3 ambulance unit to the scene. During the course of the 911 emergency call the Defendant, NIXON, erroneously input and/or entered into the ProQA system that there was one assault victim as opposed to two and as such, the ProQA system automatically generated a Code 2 based on a single assault victim By inputting two assault victims into the ProQA system, the dispatch system would have38. 39. a 42. 43. cs automatically generated a Code 3 for the priority assignment of an ambulance unit to the scene. Further, the Defendant, NIXON, became confused between the on-air radio instructions by the Surrey RCMP dispatch centre which indicated a Code 3 and the ambulance unit on- board computer aided dispatch ("CAD") system, which displayed a Code 2. EHS ambulance drivers use the code information as displayed on the CAD system to respond to 911 emergency calls. The Surrey RCMP dispatch centre on-air radio instructions, classified the 911 emergency call as a Code 3 while the CAD system classified the call as a Code 2, which confused the ambulance drivers and further delayed the response time in reaching the scene. ‘On average it take an EHS ambulance unit nine minutes and 15 seconds to respond to a Code 3 call: The EHS ambulance unit could have arrived at the scene 11 minutes sooner than it did had the Defendant, NIXON, correctly coded the call as a request for a Code 3 ambulance unit. It took approximately 20 minutes and 32 seconds for the EHS ambulance unit to arrive at the scene from the time the Surrey RCMP dispatch centre first made a request of the Defendant, NIXON, for a Code 3 ambulance unit at 2.49.43 a.m. When they arrived at the scene the EHS paramedics assessed Dario's condition, placed ‘a neck brace on him and transferred him onto a stretcher. While being loaded onto the ambulance unit Dario went into cardiac arrest as he had lost a large amount blood from his injuries, which resulted in lowering his oxygen level and causing him to enter into cardiac arrest. It is EHS's protocol that when a patient enters into cardiac arrest that he or she be transferred to the nearest hospital. As such, Dario was transferred to Peace Arch Hospital in White Rock, BC. Dario underwent multiple interventions involving several cardiopulmonary resuscitations, blood transfusions, intravenous therapy and intubations while in the emergency department of Peace Arch Hospital44, 46. 47. 48. 49. 4 ‘At or about 5:45 a.m. Dario was transferred to the operating room where he was aggressively treated with large amount of intravenous fluids, infused with packed red blood cells, platelet and frozen plasma. At or about 8:00 a.m, Dario regained his vital signs however, he was having difficulty maintaining his blood pressure and oxygen level. The treating emergency physician at Peace Arch Hospital contacted physicians at Royal ‘Columbian Hospital in New Westminster, BC_ and Children's Hospital in Vancouver, BC to discuss the possible treatment use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, which acts like artificial heart and lung to deliver oxygen to Dario. However, due to the prolonged cardiopulmonary resuscitation, as well as the ongoing inability to oxygenate and to maintain blood pressure meant that transferring Dario to Children's Hospital would be futile. Dario struggled to maintain adequate oxygenation and blood pressure. As there were no other treatment options available for oxygenation, Dario was pronounced dead by the ‘emergency room treating physician at or about 10:04 a.m. on September 13, 2014. Had the EHS ambulance unit arrived at the scene 11 minutes earlier than it did, Dario could have been transferred to British Columbia Children’s Hospital, which is equipped with an extracorporeal membrane oxygenation machine and itis more likely than not he would have survived his injuries. The death of Dario was caused and/or contributed to by the negligence of the Defendant, NIXON, for which the Defendant, HER MAJESTY, is vicariously liable, particulars of which, inter alia, are as follows’ (a) failing to correctly code into the ProQA system 911 emergency calls requesting a Code 3 ambulance unit and causing delay as to the response time; (b) failing to assign the correct ProQA code for the assignment of the priority level to an ambulance unit and causing delay as to the response time;(e) ) (9) (h) (yy 0 (k) w 9 failing to input two assault victims into the ProQA system that would have automatically generated a Code 3 which would have resulted in the ambulance unit arriving at the scene sooner than it did; fe 3 ambulance unit; ling to follow police dispatch centre requests and/or instructions for a Code failing to take immediate action when a Code 3 ambulance unit was requested by the police dispatch centre; failing to act promptly andlor in a timely manner involving an emergency matter requiring a Code 3 ambulance unit; failing to properly assess an emergency matter requiting a Code 3 ambulance unit; failing to competently discharge and/or perform the duties of a 911 emergency call dispatcher and/or call taker; failing to obtain the necessary and proper training in using the ProQA system; failing to obtain the necessary and proper training so as to assess emergency matters requiring a Code 3 ambulance unit; failing to do what a reasonable prudent 911 emergency call dispatcher and/or call taker would do under the same or similar circumstances; failing to follow EHS policies and protocols as to the assignment of the priority level to an ambulance unit; failing to exercise reasonable judgment in determining the priority of a requested dispatch for a Code 3 ambulance unit; and50. 51 52. (n) 10- failing to determine the degree of urgency and/or assign the proper code for ‘emergency matters requiring a Code 3 ambulance unit The Defendant, NIXON, knew or ought to have known that by assigning Code 2 as opposed toa Code 3 ambulance unit to the scene it would result in harm to Dario. ‘There was real and/or substantial harm in assigning a Code 2 to the 911 emergency call The Defendant, NIXON, increased the risk of harm by not acting on the requests and/or instructions from the police dispatch centre and by erroneously entering and/or inputting incorrect information into the ProQA system for a Code 3 ambulance unit and as such, breached her duty of care. The death of Dario was caused and/or contributed to by the negligence of the Defendant, HER MAJESTY, particulars of which, inter alia, are as follows: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) ) failure to provide proper and/or adequate training, guidance and/or instruction to 911 emergency call dispatchers and/or call takers in using the ProQA system; failing to properly and/or adequately monitor and/or supervise 911 emergency call dispatchers andior call takers; failing to ensure that 911 emergency call dispatchers and/or call takers discharge and/or competently perform their duties; failure to ensure that 911 emergency call dispatchers and/or call takers appropriately follow EHS policies and protocols; failing to follow police dispatch centre requests and/or instructions fora Code 3 ambulance unit; failing to take immediate action when a Code 3 ambulance unit was requested by the police dispatch centre;ae (9) failing to act promptly and/or in a timely manner involving an emergency matter requiring a Code 3 ambulance unit; (h) failing to properly assess an emergency matter requiring a Code 3 ambulance unit; and (I) failing to discharge its statutory duties and obligations under the Emergency and Health Services Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.182 53. The Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to the Family Compensation Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 126, for her own benefit as the mother of Dario. 54. Asa result of the death of Dario the Plaintiff has suffered loss, including, inter alia, (2) loss of guidance and companionship of her son; (b) loss of support; © _ loss of household assistance; and (4) loss of care. 55. The! will be provided at Trial iff has further sustained special damages, loss and expense, particulars of which Part 2: RELIEF SOUGHT 1. The Plaintiff claims judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally, for: (a) general damages; {b) special damages; (c) costs;“1d (4) interest pursuant to the Court Order Interest Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 79; and (e) such further and other relief as to this Honourable Court may seem just. Part 3: LEGAL BASIS 1. The cause of action arose wholly within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court. 2. The death of Dario was caused or contributed to by the negligence of the Defendants, Particulars of which are described in Part 1 of this Notice of Civil Claim. 3. Asa result of the negligence of the Defendants, the Plaintiff has suffered injury, loss, and damage as particularized in Part 1 of this Notice of Civil Claim. 4, The Plaintiff pleads the provisions of the Family Compensation Act, R.S.8.C. 1996, c. 126. 5. The Plaintiff pleads the provisions of the Negligence Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 333. 6. The Plaintiff pleads the provisions of the Emergency and Health Services Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, 0.182, 7. The Plaintiff pleads the provisions of the Court Order Interest Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, ¢. 79 and amendments thereto. Plaintiff's address for service: Garcha & Company Barristers & Solicitors +#405 - 4603 Kingsway Burnaby, BC V5H 4M4 Fax number address for service (if any): 604-435-4944 E-mail address for service (if any):“13. Nit Place of trial: New Westminster, BC The address of the registry is: 651 Camarvon Street New Westminster, BC V3M 1C9 Dated: November 21, 2016 Signature of K.S. Garcha lawyer for Plaintiff Rule 7-1(1) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules states: (1) Unless all parties of record consent or the court otherwise orders, each party of record to an action must, within 35 days after the end of the pleading period, (2) prepare a list of documents in Form 22 that lists (1) alldocuments that are or have been in the party's possession or control and that could, if available, be used by any party at trial to prove or disprove a material fact, and (i) alllother documents to which the party intends to refer at trial, and (b) serve the list on all parties of record,| | \ APPENDIX [The following information is provided for data collectian purposes only and is of no legal effect.) Part 1: CONCISE SUMMARY OF NATURE OF CLAIM: The Plaintiff claims against the Defendants, jointly and severally, for damages pursuant to the Family Compensation Act for the wrongful death of her infant son in providing timely ambulance services. Part 2: THIS CLAIM ARISES FROM THE FOLLOWING: A personal injury arising out of: [] amotor vehicle accident [] medical malpractice [another cause A dispute concerning: contaminated sites construction defects real property (real estate) personal property the provision of goods or services or other general commercial matters investment losses the lending of money an employment relationship a will or other issues concerning the probate of an estate a matter not listed here Part 3: THIS CLAIM INVOLVES: [] aclass action {] maritime law [1] Aboriginal law [1] constitutional law [1] confct of taws fx] none of the above donot know x) C Part 4: Family Compensation Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 126 Negligence Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 333 Emergency and Health Services Act, R.S.C.B. 1996, ¢. 182 ‘Court Order interest Act, R.S.B.C., c. 79 and amendments thereto. RONs