Ashley Emillie Jacinto Maciuk

The plaintiffs sought leave to amend their statement of claim in a medical malpractice action to substitute three specific physicians for 'Jane Doe' defendants, arguing misnomer, or alternatively, special circumstances.

The court found that misnomer did not apply as the 'litigation finger' was not pointing clearly at the proposed defendants, but rather the pleadings were vague and could apply to almost any medical staff member.

However, the court granted leave to add the proposed defendants under the doctrine of special circumstances, leaving the final determination of the limitation defence to the trial judge due to conflicting evidence on the plaintiffs' diligence.

The Member, a veterinarian, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct for viewing pornography on a workplace computer during working hours while other staff were present.

The Discipline Committee accepted the agreed statement of facts and found the Member engaged in unprofessional conduct and conduct unbecoming a veterinarian.

Applying the public interest test, the Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a public reprimand, a 1.5-month suspension, practice monitoring conditions, ongoing therapy, and $5,000 in costs.

The applicants sought a declaration that their deceased son's written consent for his cryopreserved sperm complied with the Assisted Human Reproduction Act and its regulations, and an order for its release to create an embryo.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the Act prohibits the use of human reproductive material for embryo creation without specific written consent for third-party use, and that posthumous donation is limited to a spouse or common-law partner.

The court also found that distributing the sperm in Canada for use outside Canada would still breach the Act due to distribution prohibitions and lack of required testing.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action against an endocrinologist and a hospital, alleging negligence in the treatment of her hypothyroidism and pre/post-surgery care.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment, supported by expert evidence demonstrating they met the standard of care.

The plaintiff failed to provide any expert medical evidence to rebut the defendants' experts or establish a breach of the standard of care.

The court granted the summary judgment motions and dismissed the action without costs, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.