Andrew J. Reddon

In this patent damages appeal under s. 8 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, the Court upheld the Federal Court of Appeal decision and dismissed the patentees' appeal.

The Court agreed with the majority's reasoning on liability period, market-entry assumptions, and compensation for lost sales tied to unapproved indications.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeals, the successful respondents sought partial indemnity costs of $7,000 for each of the two appeals.

The respondents argued for a premium based on policy considerations and the appellant's conduct.

The court rejected the request for a premium or substantial indemnity costs, finding that the appellant raised genuine issues regarding jurisdiction and damages.

The court fixed the costs payable by the appellant to the respondents at $4,500 for each appeal, for a total of $9,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The appellant travel company appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding damages to a married couple for a ruined vacation.

The appellant argued the couple improperly split their case to circumvent the $10,000 Small Claims Court limit, that it was not responsible for the disappointing holiday, and that the damages were excessive.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that each spouse had a separate contract with the appellant and was entitled to bring a separate action.

The court also upheld the trial judge's findings of misrepresentation and the assessment of damages for loss of enjoyment and wasted vacation time.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which confirmed a Complaints Committee decision requiring him to attend for a Caution regarding an alleged improper breast examination.

The Divisional Court quashed the Board's decision, finding that the entire process fell below the required standard of procedural fairness.

The Committee and Board improperly made credibility findings based on uncorroborated hearsay, relied on an undisclosed expert opinion, and engaged in an unconscionable delay of 1,350 days.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their medical malpractice action arising from the birth of a child who suffered severe brain damage due to oxygen deprivation during a breech delivery.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred by failing to make an explicit finding on causation, misapprehending expert evidence regarding fetal monitoring, and failing to apply the 'Breech Plus Rule' for the standard of care.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the failure to explicitly determine causation did not affect the trial judge's conclusion that the obstetrician met the standard of care.

The court found the trial judge's factual findings regarding the obstetrician's decisions and the rejection of an absolute rule for breech deliveries were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appellant municipality appealed a judgment finding it liable for negligent misrepresentation arising from assurances given at council meetings that a road would be upgraded in time to permit a subdivision development.

The court held that the trial judge was entitled to accept the respondent's evidence over the municipal minutes, and that the respondent reasonably relied on the assurances in proceeding with the development agreement and related expenditures.

The representations were treated as implying an existing municipal commitment and ability to complete the road work, not merely non-actionable future promises.

In the circumstances, where the Reeve spoke before full council without correction, the municipality could be liable at the operational level in negligence.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.