Andrea Kristine Farkouh

The defendant hospital brought two motions: one to enforce an alleged settlement (a Pierringer Agreement) and another for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's medical malpractice claim.

The court dismissed the motion to enforce the settlement, finding that while the parties had agreed on the settlement amount, essential terms regarding document production and witness cooperation remained unresolved.

The court also dismissed the summary judgment motion, concluding that competing expert evidence regarding the nursing standard of care and whether the nurses' actions contributed to the plaintiff's compartment syndrome created genuine issues requiring a trial.

This case involves a dispute among seven siblings over the equal distribution of their deceased parents' assets, held in part through an estate freeze vehicle, 1280584 Ontario Inc. The applicants sought an order for production of additional financial records or the appointment of an inspector under the Ontario Business Corporations Act, arguing that the respondent's accounting was inaccurate and incomplete.

The court found deep distrust and obstruction from the respondents, warranting independent review.

The appellant challenged a conviction for failing to report a blasting incident that propelled fly-rock into the air and damaged nearby property.

The Court held that the reporting duty under the Environmental Protection Act is triggered where a contaminant is discharged out of the normal course of events and there is or may be an adverse effect, without requiring proof of actual impairment to the natural environment.

It emphasized the statute’s broad remedial purpose and confirmed that each branch of the adverse-effect definition independently engages the duty to notify the regulator.

On the facts, the discharge caused significant property damage and potential serious harm, requiring immediate reporting.

The appeal was dismissed.

The court considered whether a single-purpose corporate purchaser seeking specific performance after a failed land transaction was exempt from the mitigation principle in contract damages.

The majority held that incorporation benefits carry corresponding burdens, including reasonable mitigation efforts where substitute opportunities are available.

It concluded the purchaser lacked a substantial and legitimate basis to avoid mitigation and that the evidentiary record supported available comparable development opportunities.

The dissent would have restored trial damages, finding no palpable and overriding error on mitigation opportunity and reasonableness.

The appeal and cross-appeal were both dismissed, leaving the appellate reduction to nominal damages in place.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her claims against her former solicitor and a charitable foundation regarding the transfer of her home with a retained life estate.

At trial, she argued non est factum and breach of fiduciary duty, both of which were dismissed based on credibility findings.

On appeal, she raised a new argument of solicitor negligence regarding ongoing property expenses, which the court declined to hear as it was not pleaded at trial.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings and the award of substantial indemnity costs, dismissing the appeal.

The Court of Appeal previously allowed the defendant's appeal, reducing the plaintiff's damages for breach of contract from $1,935,500 to nominal damages of $1 due to a failure to mitigate.

In this costs endorsement, the court applied the cost consequences of Rule 49.10(2) because the plaintiff obtained a judgment less favourable than the defendant's pre-trial offer to settle for $100,000.

The defendant was awarded net partial indemnity costs of $400,000.

The appellant school board breached an agreement of purchase and sale by failing to use its best efforts to obtain a severance for a parcel of land.

The respondent purchaser sued for specific performance or damages.

The trial judge awarded damages for lost profits.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the finding of breach but allowed the appeal on the issue of mitigation.

The Court found that the respondent, a single-purpose company, admitted it had no intention of mitigating its damages and took no steps to do so, despite its parent company purchasing other comparable properties.

The judgment was set aside and nominal damages of $1 were substituted.