UPDATE - A B.C. Supreme Court judgment against Port Alberni Dr. Akushla Wijayanayagam has been reversed by the B.C. Court of Appeal. The appeal court ordered that Dr. Magdy Fouad's suit against Wijayanayagam be dismissed and that Fouad pay Wijayanayagam's court costs. Related story
STORY - Two Port Alberni doctors defamed a fellow doctor at West Coast General Hospital while a third violated his privacy, and the three must pay him $180,000 plus legal costs, a B.C. Supreme Court justice has ruled.
The infighting between doctors was laid out before Justice Deborah Kloegman at a Nanaimo trial.
Magdy Fouad, a specialist in obstetrics and gynecology, sued Shane Longman, Jennifer Hankins and Akushla Wijayanayagam (who also goes by the shorter form, Dr. Wijay) in an attempt to quell what he perceived to be his persecution and ostracization in Port Alberni.
Fouad moved to Port Alberni in August 2009 and a month later rented a house owned by Longman and Hankins, who are married.
“Things did not go well for the plaintiff at WCGH,” said Kloegman in her decision.
“From a very early stage, the defendants questioned his competency and were openly disrespectful to him.”
A flood in the rental house marked the beginning of an unpleasant dispute between Fouad and the owners that spilled over into the hospital workplace.
Fouad moved out of the home in March 2010, and the rental dispute was settled a few months later.
All four doctors wrote complaint letters to the College of Physicians and Surgeons. In June 2010, the college ordered an external review of Fouad’s practice.
“The reviewer not only found that [Fouad] met the standard of care applicable in B.C., but he specifically found that the plaintiff’s knowledge of his specialty was above average, moulded by experience, and up-to-date,” Kloegman said.
The college then scolded Longman and Wijayanayagam for inappropriate and unprofessional behaviour, and they were invited to take part in remedial interviews.
Wijayanayagam failed to show the Health Professions Review Board she understood why it was inappropriate to openly criticize a colleague while they were performing surgery, or to undertake her own investigation into a colleague’s credentials.
Longman, however, admitted he made a mistake and promised to make efforts to correct future behaviour.
Longman refused to grant Fouad’s request for a rent reduction due to the flooded basement, but then wrote a letter to the insurance adjuster saying the tenant’s rent had been waived and he expected reimbursement from the insurance company.
When Fouad moved out in March, Longman spent more than two hours on a move-out inspection, complete with photography.
“He testified that he had been concerned that the plaintiff and his wife had been smoking in the house, but he made no comment during the lengthy move-out inspection because he had not observed any smell or damage,” Kloegman said.
Nevertheless, Longman asked a technician for an estimate of repairs for smoke damage and was told it would be $9,000.
He also asked Wijayanayagam to come by, and she gave him a statement that there was an “overpowering” smell of smoke in the residence.
Hankins showed “palpable animosity” toward Fouad during the trial, the justice said.
“At one point, she underlined the plaintiff’s description of himself as a ‘well-proven, competent, skilful and professional surgeon’ and printed the words ‘HA HA HA’ below it,” said Kloegman.
Wijayanayagam, Hankins and Longman were each ordered to pay Fouad $50,000 in general damages and an additional $10,000 in aggravated damages for their “malicious conduct.”
