Amanda Cristen Smallwood

The applicant physician sought a stay, a sealing order, and a publication ban pending judicial review of a decision by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The court also dismissed the request for a sealing order, citing the open court principle.

However, the court granted anonymization and limited redactions to protect the applicant's personal medical records and her status as a victim of sexual assault.

The applicant sought an interim publication ban pending a motion for a full publication ban.

The court granted the interim ban to preserve the applicant's ability to argue the privacy and security interests of her family, finding that the salutary effects outweighed any minimal deleterious effects on the media.

The applicant was directed to notify the media of the pending motion in accordance with the Consolidated Provincial Practice Direction.

The plaintiff motorcyclist brought a motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability following a motor vehicle accident.

The defendant driver had made a sudden left turn into the plaintiff's path of travel.

The court applied the summary judgment framework and utilized its fact-finding powers to resolve conflicts in the affidavit evidence.

The court found the defendant solely liable for the accident, concluding he failed to ensure the turn could be made in safety and failed to see the plaintiff who was there to be seen.

The court found no contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff sued numerous lawyers, insurers, medical assessors, experts, and court reporting parties arising from the handling of underlying motor vehicle accident tort and accident benefits litigation.

The court applied the summary judgment framework and held that the claims were either statute-barred, defeated by the absence of any duty of care, barred by expert witness immunity, unsupported by admissible evidence, or lacking any proof of compensable damage.

Claims against former counsel failed for limitation and lack of expert support and causation; claims against opposing counsel and insurers failed because no duty was owed to an adverse party; claims against expert assessors failed because their litigation-related reports were immune from suit.

Allegations that discovery transcripts had been doctored were unsupported and did not disclose any triable issue.

Summary judgment was granted to all defendants and the action was dismissed.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action against several healthcare providers and police officers regarding a psychiatric assessment hold under the Mental Health Act.

The defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiff failed to produce an expert report addressing professional negligence.

The court found that without a supportive expert report, the plaintiff had no prospect of success.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action was dismissed, with costs awarded to the defendants.

The appellant challenged summary judgment dismissing her negligence claim against the respondent physician.

The Court of Appeal held that, even assuming the respondent could be sued in negligence and owed a duty of care, there was no evidence from which a trier of fact could find that the respondent fell below the applicable standard of care.

A possible error in diagnosing the source of the appellant's problems was not, without more, evidence of breach of the standard of care.

The appeal was dismissed, and appeal costs of $2,500 inclusive were awarded to the respondent if demanded.

The defendant psychologist brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a professional negligence claim arising from a psychological assessment conducted for litigation purposes.

The plaintiff alleged negligent misdiagnosis and damages stemming from being labelled as suffering from a delusional disorder.

The court held that professional negligence claims require qualified expert evidence establishing the applicable standard of care and causation.

The plaintiff relied on reports from individuals not qualified to provide expert opinions on the standard of care of a psychologist practising in Ontario and none addressed breach or causation.

In the absence of admissible expert evidence, the claim had no reasonable prospect of success and was dismissed.

The appellant, a registered massage therapist, appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Massage Therapists of Ontario finding him guilty of professional misconduct and imposing a 12-month suspension and an indefinite restriction on needling the subclavius muscle.

The misconduct arose after the appellant performed acupuncture on a patient's subclavius muscle, causing a punctured lung (pneumothorax), and subsequently failed to refer the patient to a hospital when she presented with symptoms of the condition.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal's conclusions regarding the appellant's incompetence, failure to maintain professional standards, and disgraceful conduct were reasonable and supported by expert evidence.

The Court also upheld the penalty, noting it was within the reasonable range and justified by the need to protect the public.

Costs decision following a refusals motion concerning whether documents and information sought on discovery were protected by statutory privilege under s. 266(2) of the Education Act.

The moving party’s motion to compel answers was largely unsuccessful after the court determined the privilege applied, though the moving party succeeded on a limited issue regarding an investigator’s report and several other matters were resolved consensually.

The successful responding party sought over $15,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The court held the requested amount was excessive given the simplicity of the factual issues and that certain claimed time related to general discovery obligations rather than the motion itself.

Applying proportionality and fairness principles under the Courts of Justice Act and Rules of Civil Procedure, the court awarded reduced costs of $6,000 against the moving party, with no costs payable by co-defendants who had merely responded to the motion.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 34.15 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to compel a private school to answer refused questions on discovery and produce unredacted documents identifying non‑party students and parents who may have information relevant to claims including defamation, malicious prosecution, and breach of contract.

The school resisted disclosure relying on the statutory privilege for Ontario Student Records under s. 266(2) of the Education Act.

The court found the plaintiff’s narrower interpretation of the privilege persuasive but concluded it was bound by prior authority holding that students’ names and addresses form part of the OSR and are protected by the statutory privilege.

As a result, the court held the information could not be disclosed without consent of the students or parents.

The motion to compel answers and production was therefore dismissed, subject only to disclosure that would not identify non‑party students or their parents.