Andra Maxwell-Baker

Following a trial where the plaintiffs were awarded non-pecuniary damages, the court determined the issues of prejudgment interest and costs.

The court awarded prejudgment interest at the prescribed rate of 3.0 per cent from the commencement of the action, declining the defendants' request to average the rate or shorten the period due to delay.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' claim for substantial indemnity costs, finding no justification for it, and awarded partial indemnity costs fixed at $175,000 all-inclusive.

The plaintiffs in a medical negligence action moved under Rules 5.04(2) and 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for leave to amend their statement of claim to add additional physicians as defendants and to substitute certain doctors for fictitiously named defendants on the basis of misnomer.

The court considered the discoverability principles under the Limitations Act, 2002 and the evidentiary threshold required to add parties where the limitation period may have expired.

The court found the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence of due diligence in identifying several proposed defendants prior to the expiry of the limitation period.

The court also rejected the misnomer argument for certain physicians because the pleadings did not clearly point to them as the intended defendants.

Leave was granted only for two physicians whose addition was uncontested, while the balance of the requested amendments was refused.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of an action as statute barred under the notice provisions of the Municipal Act.

The court held there was no dispute that written notice had not been given within 10 days as required by s. 44(10), and the appellant therefore bore the onus under s. 44(12) to establish a reasonable excuse and absence of prejudice to the municipality.

The motion judge's reasons were found to be careful and considered, and the appellate court found no error in the analysis or in the application of the governing principles.

The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their action for negligent misrepresentation.

They alleged the respondents negligently misrepresented that a property severance had been obtained in 1996.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that even if the representation was made, the appellant knew nothing had been registered.

Under the Planning Act, registration is required for a valid severance.

The court held that the appellants' loss was caused by their own error of law, for which the respondents could not be held accountable.

The Children's Lawyer appealed two orders of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, finding that the Children's Lawyer lacked standing to bring the appeal as she had only appeared on the motion below to request an adjournment and did not seek to be appointed Litigation Guardian or intervene as a party.

The actual Litigation Guardian did not appeal the orders.

The plaintiffs were successful in a personal injury action and were awarded damages and costs.

The trial judge also awarded a risk premium of $192,600 to the plaintiffs' counsel, payable by the defendants, because counsel had carried the litigation for four years without remuneration.

The Court of Appeal upheld the risk premium.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and set aside the risk premium, holding that the risk of non-payment to a plaintiff's lawyer is not a relevant factor under Rule 57.01(1) of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure when fixing costs payable by an unsuccessful defendant.