Blerta Gjoci

This is a medical malpractice action in which the plaintiff, Kathleen Joanne O’Brien, alleged negligent treatment by the defendant, Dr. Jasjit Lochab, an orthopaedic surgeon, following a hip fracture and subsequent surgery in December 2018.

The parties agreed on damages, leaving liability as the sole issue.

The court found that Dr. Lochab met the standard of care in his choice and use of implant, as well as in his post-operative instructions.

The action was dismissed, with costs awarded to the defendant.

The case involves a dispute between two brothers, Nickolas and George Georghiades, co-founders of a real estate business (LP).

Nickolas brought a motion seeking the appointment of an auditor, inspector, and monitor, and direct access to business information, alleging oppression and misappropriation of funds by George.

The court found a prima facie case of oppression due to George's control over information and the brothers' dysfunctional relationship.

The court ordered the appointment of an independent Monitor with a prescribed mandate to observe and report on the business's financial activities, in addition to an agreed-upon audit.

The request for a separate inspector/investigator and direct access was declined at this stage, with the possibility of revisiting if the Monitor's reports indicate ongoing difficulties.

No costs were awarded.

The plaintiff sued the defendant plastic surgeon for medical malpractice, alleging he breached the standard of care by failing to assess her and obtain x-rays within 7 to 10 days following surgery for a fractured finger.

The plaintiff claimed this delay prevented an immediate repeat surgery and necessitated a more complex corrective procedure months later.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding no established standard of care requiring a general plastic surgeon to conduct a post-operative assessment and x-rays within the 7 to 10-day window.

The plaintiffs moved for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendant from terminating an agreement for the supply of water and wastewater treatment services.

The defendant had threatened to terminate the services on 60 days' notice unless the plaintiffs paid a massive retroactive price increase.

The court found that the injunction was prohibitory, but that the plaintiffs had met the higher standard of a strong prima facie case regardless.

The court held that the defendant's use of the termination clause to extort a unilateral price increase was a strong prima facie breach of the duty of good faith performance.

Finding irreparable harm and a balance of convenience favouring the plaintiffs, the court granted the injunction for nine months to allow the plaintiffs to build their own water recycling facilities.