Brandyn Di Domenico

This costs endorsement follows the dismissal of a motion by the plaintiffs to abridge the time for service of an expert report regarding the standard of care by a hospital.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, as well as the principles in Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario.

The court found that a fair and reasonable award of costs for the motion was $7,500, to be paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant, Grand River Hospital.

The plaintiffs moved for an order abridging the time for service of an expert report regarding the standard of care by a hospital.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no reasonable explanation for the late service of the plaintiff’s expert report and emphasizing the importance of timely service of expert reports under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The matter was removed from the January 2025 trial sittings and directed to Trial Scheduling Court.

The Ontario Trial Lawyers Association (OTLA) brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal concerning the appropriate prejudgment interest (PJI) rate for non-pecuniary damages in a medical malpractice case.

The plaintiffs consented, while the defendant, Dr. Zaitlen, opposed.

The court granted OTLA leave to intervene on the issue of the analytical framework and evidentiary threshold for departing from the statutory PJI rate, but denied leave to make submissions on adequate notice, as it would improperly expand the scope of the appeal.

In a medical malpractice action arising from catastrophic injuries inflicted on a newborn by his biological mother, the plaintiffs alleged that a family physician and a pediatrician negligently failed to report child protection concerns under s. 72 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The court found that the family physician conducted adequate mental health and coping assessments, and that neither physician had reasonable grounds to suspect the infant was a child in need of protection.

Although the family physician breached the standard of care by not providing the pediatrician with a fuller mental health history, that breach had no causal consequence.

The court further held that, even if a report had been made, the Children's Aid Society would likely have treated the matter as low risk and would not have intervened in time to prevent the assault.

The action was dismissed, with damages nonetheless fixed by agreement at $13,250,000 under Rule 7.08.

This decision addresses a request by the respondent (defendant in the original action) to limit the scope of a new trial on liability and damages, which had been ordered by the Court of Appeal in a prior decision.

The court dismissed the request, emphasizing that the evidence and issues were complex, interrelated, and interdependent.

Limiting the trial to specific issues would risk artificial credibility assessments and unreliable fact-finding.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their medical malpractice action against an obstetrician following a catastrophic birth injury.

The infant suffered acute near-total oxygen deprivation prior to birth, resulting in severe permanent brain damage.

At trial, the judge dismissed the action, finding no breach of the standard of care and no causation.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the trial judge's reasons were legally inadequate regarding causation and one of the standard of care issues (the failure to complete the delivery with Kielland forceps).

The reasons failed to explain critical findings, preventing meaningful appellate review.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered on all issues of liability and damages.

This decision addresses a challenge to the admissibility of an expert witness, Dr. David Gladstone, during a medical malpractice trial.

Counsel for the defendants argued that Dr. Gladstone was not impartial or objective and was in a conflict of interest due to a prior treating relationship with the plaintiff.

The court found that Dr. Gladstone had disclosed the prior relationship to the plaintiffs' counsel, believed it irrelevant to his expert opinion, and was confident in his objectivity.

The court also clarified that treating physicians can act as medical experts, with their duty solely to the adjudicative body, not to advocate for former patients.

The judge qualified Dr. Gladstone as an expert and permitted him to testify, criticizing the defendants' counsel for raising the challenge for the first time at trial as a 'trial by ambush'.

The court addressed a dispute in a medical malpractice jury trial regarding the wording of causation questions and whether the jury should provide reasons for their findings.

The plaintiffs proposed "caused or contributed to" language, while the defendants advocated for "but for" and requested reasons.

The court accepted the plaintiffs' "caused or contributed to" language, finding no compelling reason not to translate the "but for" test into everyday language, and rejected the request for the jury to provide reasons, citing the risk of confusion and violation of jury secrecy.