Dan Hartman says he plans to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada after the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed his lawsuit against the federal government over the death of his teenage son, Sean Hartman.
The Court of Appeal recently upheld a lower court ruling that struck the claim in its entirety, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success. The original lawsuit was brought against Canada (Attorney General) and alleged negligence and misfeasance in public office related to the federal government’s approval, promotion, and monitoring of COVID-19 vaccines.
The case was originally filed following the death of 17-year-old Sean Hartman in September 2021. According to court filings referenced in earlier proceedings, Sean was found dead beside his bed 33 days after receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. His father stated that Sean had been previously healthy and was later taken to hospital after developing symptoms following vaccination. Hartman has said his son chose to be vaccinated so he could continue playing hockey, as vaccination requirements were in place for many sports and activities at the time.
In his claim, Dan Hartman alleged that federal officials, including the Minister of Health, were negligent in their handling of vaccine approval and public communications. He further argued that officials acted with reckless indifference or wilful blindness to potential risks and that their conduct amounted to misfeasance in public office.
The Court of Appeal acknowledged the “devastating nature” of Sean Hartman’s death and described it as a tragic loss for the family and community. However, the court ultimately concluded that the legal claims could not succeed.
Central to the decision was the finding that the federal government does not owe a private duty of care to individual members of the public when making broad public health decisions during a pandemic. The court emphasized that such decisions are made in the interest of the population as a whole and often involve difficult trade offs that may carry risks for some individuals.
On the allegation of misfeasance in public office, the court found that the claim failed to establish the required legal threshold. Judges stated that there were no material facts showing that officials acted in bad faith or knowingly engaged in unlawful conduct likely to cause harm to Sean Hartman.
The court also noted that the clinical trial data referenced in the lawsuit supported the conclusion that the vaccine was highly effective, which it said undermined the argument that officials knowingly promoted a harmful or ineffective product.
In addition, the court ruled that the public statements cited in the claim were general communications directed at Canadians as a whole and did not create a specific legal relationship or duty toward Sean Hartman individually. As a result, the court found there was no proximity sufficient to establish negligence.
The panel also warned that allowing the case to proceed could have broader implications, including discouraging governments from making urgent public health decisions during emergencies due to fear of legal liability. The court further upheld the lower court’s refusal to allow amendments to the claim, stating that proposed changes would not cure the fundamental legal defects and that claims must be properly pleaded from the outset.
Ultimately, the Court of Appeal concluded that while the circumstances were deeply tragic, the law did not support holding the federal government liable on the facts and causes of action presented. The appeal was dismissed, with no costs awarded.
Following last weeks decision, Hartman said he would considering a final appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. He said he and his legal team would review the ruling and make a final decision and noted that pursuing the case further could cost more than 20,000 dollars.
Dan has launched a fundraising campaign for donations to help with his legal fees. A link to his donation page can be found at the link below.
