Alexandra Roman

The TEC defendants brought a motion to admit evidence from the criminal trial of Christopher Husbands (who committed a mass shooting at the Eaton Centre) into the upcoming civil trial, and to strike the plaintiffs' jury notices.

The defendants argued the evidence was necessary to establish Husbands' mindset and the spontaneity of his actions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that Husbands' specific mindset and reasons for the shooting were not relevant to the core issue of whether the defendants breached their duty of care regarding security under the Occupiers' Liability Act.

As the criminal evidence was not admitted, the court also declined to strike the jury notices, finding that a jury is capable of handling the anticipated expert evidence on security standards.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendants' jury notice after the trial was delayed due to the suspension of civil jury trials in Toronto during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The plaintiff argued that the delay and uncertainty of a jury trial caused financial prejudice.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the anticipated eight-month delay to the next scheduled jury sittings did not justify depriving the defendants of their substantive right to a jury trial, especially since they had based their litigation strategy on that right.

The trial was adjourned to the June 2021 civil jury sittings.

The defendants, the Toronto Police Services Board and the Eaton Centre, sought to schedule summary judgment motions to determine their liability in four related civil actions arising from a 2012 shooting at the Toronto Eaton Centre.

The plaintiffs opposed the motions, arguing they were entitled to a full jury trial on all issues.

The court held that there is no absolute right to a civil trial and that a summary judgment process is a legitimate alternative.

Finding that the liability issues would likely turn on legal concepts and expert evidence rather than disputed facts, the court directed that the summary judgment motions be scheduled.

The plaintiff underwent a nephrectomy performed by the defendant urologist after being diagnosed with suspected renal cell carcinoma.

Post-surgery pathology revealed the mass was a benign renal abscess.

The plaintiff sued for medical malpractice, alleging breach of the standard of care, lack of informed consent, and that the unnecessary removal of her kidney accelerated her end-stage renal failure.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding that the defendant met the standard of care as the clinical presentation and imaging strongly indicated malignancy and a biopsy was not the standard of care.

The court also found that informed consent was obtained and that the plaintiff failed to prove causation, as her pre-existing poorly controlled diabetes would have necessitated a kidney transplant regardless of the nephrectomy.

The plaintiff in a medical malpractice action brought a motion to compel answers to questions refused on discovery by the defendant doctors.

The action involved allegations of negligence in connection with hip replacement and revision surgeries.

The court held that questions seeking retrospective opinions or speculation about the cause of metal fatigue and the conduct of co-defendants were improper.

However, questions regarding a defendant doctor's understanding and belief at the time of treating the plaintiff were proper and ordered to be answered.