Andrew Kalamut

The plaintiff, Sarah Salisbury, sued Dr. Stephen Kraft for medical negligence, specifically alleging a lack of informed consent for a strabismus surgery that resulted in permanent double vision (diplopia).

Dr. Kraft moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff could not satisfy the modified objective test for causation or establish a breach of his disclosure obligations.

The court, applying Rule 20.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found that a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position would have opted for the surgery given the limited alternatives and her prior positive experience with the same procedure.

The court also found the plaintiff's evidence regarding the alleged lack of disclosure unreliable when weighed against Dr. Kraft's contemporaneous notes and invariable professional practice.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the plaintiff's claim was dismissed.

The moving party brought a motion to quash an appeal from an application judge's decision setting aside an arbitrator's ruling that added subcontractors as parties to an arbitration.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion to quash, finding that the arbitrator's decision to add parties was a question of jurisdiction under the Arbitration Act, 1991.

Pursuant to section 17(9) of the Act, no appeal lies from a court's decision on a question of an arbitrator's jurisdiction.

The defendants, Dr. Hans Dietrich Strauss and The Credit Valley Hospital, brought motions for summary judgment in a medical malpractice case concerning the death of Paul Delicata.

The plaintiffs alleged negligence in the care of the deceased.

The court found the plaintiffs' expert evidence inadmissible due to procedural non-compliance (not attached to an expert's affidavit, non-compliance with Rule 53.03 requirements).

Even if admissible, the expert reports were deficient and contradicted by hospital records.

The court accepted the defendants' expert evidence, concluding there was no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the standard of care or causation.

The motions for summary judgment were granted, and the action was dismissed against both defendants.

The plaintiff, N.M. Davis Corporation Limited, moved for a further and better affidavit of documents from the defendant, Marshall Stuart Ross, specifically seeking a detailed Schedule B regarding the Crown disclosure brief from a related criminal matter.

The plaintiff sought this information to determine when the co-defendant, Eva Jacqueline Wower, might have anticipated Ross's conviction for murder, which is relevant to the plaintiff's claim that Ross fraudulently conveyed properties to Wower under the guise of a divorce to defeat a judgment.

The defendant Ross resisted, arguing irrelevance and disproportionality given the 13 boxes of documents.

The court, applying principles from D.P. v. Wagg and Rule 29.2, found that while the timing of disclosure was relevant, requiring a full cataloguing of the entire Crown brief was disproportionate.

The court ordered Ross to amend his affidavit to identify transmission documents (e.g., covering letters) indicating when portions of the Crown brief were received by his counsel, without requiring a full Wagg screening process for these transmission documents.

Costs were awarded in the cause.

The plaintiff moved to amend its Statement of Claim shortly before trial in a commercial dispute arising from the termination of a racetrack slots program agreement.

The defendant opposed the amendment on grounds including alleged limitation issues, withdrawal of a prior admission, expansion beyond the agreed issues list, and the inclusion of argumentative pleading.

The court reviewed the principles governing amendments under Rule 26 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and concluded that amendments should generally be granted unless non-compensable prejudice is demonstrated.

Finding no such prejudice, the court allowed the amendments but imposed conditions restricting further discovery and requiring the amendments to be filed in black‑line format.

The court also rejected arguments that the amendments improperly altered the character of the action or were barred by limitation on the record before it.