A Manitoba physician’s lawsuit against Prairie Mountain Health and its chief medical officer was struck after the court found her older claims were out of time and her more recent allegations lacked the facts needed to support a contract claim.
But the August 19 ruling in Rist v. Prairie Mountain Health, et al., 2026 MBKB 114 left a limited, conditional opportunity to rewrite allegations concerning January to June 2023. Associate Judge Patterson of the Court of King’s Bench of Manitoba did not decide whether the alleged workplace mistreatment occurred.
The distinction matters: the existing statement of claim could not proceed as drafted, but the court did not permanently close every possible claim arising from the 2023 events. Nor did it find the lawsuit frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process.
Two periods of disputed work
Dr. Jamie Rist sued Prairie Mountain Health, the regional health authority serving Brandon and southwestern Manitoba, and Dr. Shaun Gauthier, its chief medical officer. Her June 27, 2025 statement of claim sought remedies including damages for wrongful dismissal, breach of contract and breach of contractual good faith.
The pleading described a part-time emergency medical officer position at Brandon Regional Health Centre beginning in 2016. It also described a November 30, 2017 termination letter ending her positions and withdrawing an offer of further work. Rist said scheduled shifts were cancelled, although she continued to hold hospital privileges.
Most of the claim concerned events before Manitoba’s new Limitations Act took effect on September 30, 2022. A separate part alleged that Prairie Mountain approached Rist about hospitalist work in January 2023, that she resumed providing coverage, and that she was told on June 29, 2023 she could no longer cover shifts.
Rist maintained that her relationship with the authority continued throughout and that the earlier events formed part of a continuing or rolling claim ending in June 2023. The defendants argued that the older allegations were too late and that the recent ones did not identify a contractual basis for liability.
Why the older claims were too late
A motion to strike tests whether a pleading sets out a legally viable claim, rather than conducting a trial of the disputed events. The reasons explain that striking is an exceptional remedy: a claim must be read generously and should not be struck merely because it is novel or faces a strong defence.
A limitation defence ordinarily requires a different procedural route. But the court could decide it on a motion to strike where the necessary facts were apparent from the pleading itself.
Here, the judge found that Rist’s own pleading established the November 2017 termination and that she knew, or ought to have known, of potential claims at that time.
For claims discovered before the new Act began, the transitional rule required proceedings before the earlier of two years after September 30, 2022 and the applicable deadline under the former legislation. A six-year contractual limitation running from the termination would have expired on November 30, 2023. Even using the later September 30, 2024 date, the June 2025 lawsuit was too late for the older allegations.
Hospital privileges did not fill the contractual gap
Rist argued that retaining privileges meant she remained an employee or dependent contractor and that an ongoing obligation kept the claims alive.
The court did not accept that argument on the facts pleaded. The statement of claim did not identify a written or oral agreement governing her work after the 2017 termination, or provide material facts about compensation and the contractual relationship. Describing herself as financially and economically dependent on the authority did not supply those missing details.
The ruling was not a general declaration that physicians cannot be employees or dependent contractors. The reasons recognized different possible working relationships and distinguished another physician’s dependent-contractor case in which a specific service contract existed. Rist’s retained privileges did not, by themselves, establish the continuing contractual relationship she relied on.
The January–June 2023 allegations were different on timing: the lawsuit was filed two days before the June 29, 2025 limitation date identified by the court. They nevertheless lacked the foundational contractual facts needed to support the claim.
The judge also found that the pleading too often supplied evidence, background and argument rather than concise material facts. However, the defendants had not established the additional grounds of frivolous or vexatious litigation or abuse of process. Their request for particulars and subsequent motion were not barred by the procedural-delay objections Rist raised.
A restricted chance to amend
The court allowed conditional amendment only of the allegations concerning January to June 2023, identified in paragraphs 71 to 83 of the statement of claim. The older, time-barred claims could not be rescued through that permission.
A proposed amended claim had to be attached to an affidavit, filed with the court and served on defence counsel within 45 days of the filing of the order reflecting the reasons—not 45 days from the judgment date. If the defendants objected to the proposed pleading, a further hearing would determine whether it could be filed.
Permission also depended on satisfactory arrangements concerning the defendants’ costs. Failure to comply with the conditions would leave the claim struck in its entirety. The defendants were awarded costs, but the reasons did not fix an amount.
The available reasons do not establish when the order was filed or whether an amended pleading was subsequently submitted or approved. The decision therefore provides a conditional route to repair part of the lawsuit, not confirmation that a revised claim is now proceeding or that any damages are owed.
