Brendan Fitzpatrick Morrison

The parties sought to enforce Minutes of Settlement regarding the division and sale of jointly owned commercial properties.

The respondents alleged the applicants breached the agreement by failing to extend a bid deadline during the property auction.

The court found the applicants did not breach the agreement, as the independent broker recommended against the extension and the contract did not require it.

The respondents were found in breach for refusing to execute the backstop purchase agreement without unauthorized amendments.

The court ordered specific performance, compelling the respondents to execute the agreement as drafted.

This decision concerns a medical negligence action brought by the family and estate of Kevin John McMullan against several physicians and a hospital, following Mr. McMullan’s sudden death from an aortic dissection.

The plaintiffs alleged that Dr. Naom and Dr. El Jaoudi breached the standard of care in their treatment of Mr. McMullan and that these breaches caused or contributed to his death.

The court found that both physicians met the standard of care in all respects, including the interpretation of diagnostic tests, management of hypertension, and discharge instructions.

The court also found that, even if there had been a breach, the plaintiffs failed to prove causation: the evidence established that Mr. McMullan’s aorta was normal for his age and body size, and that he would not have been referred for surgery or prevented from suffering the fatal dissection.

The action was dismissed in its entirety.

This decision addresses an evidentiary dispute during a trial regarding the admissibility of post-assessment medical reports through a defendant fact witness, Dr. McPherson.

The defendants sought to introduce reports created after Dr. McPherson's last assessment of the plaintiff, Jeremy Veran, to demonstrate improvement in symptoms.

The plaintiffs objected, arguing Dr. McPherson had not seen these documents and was not an expert witness.

The court ruled that documents not seen or received by Dr. McPherson, and not directly relevant to his care of the plaintiff, could not be introduced through him as a fact witness, even if they were part of the joint book of documents.

The defendants brought a motion to address two issues: the admissibility of opinions in two plaintiff expert reports (Miyanji and Levin) and the admissibility of evidence from five lay witnesses.

The court ruled that portions of the Miyanji and Levin reports that did not respond to specific "Defence Expert Reports" or introduced new standard of care issues were inadmissible due to late service and lack of reasonable explanation.

The motion to exclude the lay witnesses was dismissed as premature, with the court stating that the admissibility of their evidence, particularly any opinion evidence, should be assessed at the time it is tendered at trial.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking several orders before trial, including dismissal of claims against certain defendants, leave to amend their statement of claim, preliminary determination of jury questions, and exclusion of expert evidence.

The court granted the dismissal of claims against the "Released Defendants" without costs, as it was previously agreed upon.

Leave was granted to file a Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim, as the proposed amendments were extensive and did not remove admissions.

The court also determined the format for jury questions, largely adopting the plaintiffs' approach for damages and requiring explanations for answers, emphasizing standard of care and "but for" causation.

The issue of expert evidence was adjourned to a later date.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to preclude the defendants from introducing evidence from fifteen expert reports served late in a medical malpractice action.

The court considered the admissibility under Rule 53.08, assessing whether there was a reasonable explanation for the late service and if granting leave would cause irreparable prejudice or undue delay.

The court allowed some reports as supplementary or responding reports, finding a general reasonable explanation for delay due to discovery issues and prior party understanding.

However, it excluded a vocational report that introduced new scenarios without prior notice and a neuropsychological report, reiterating a previous ruling that no neuropsychological impairment issue was pleaded or supported by evidence, and its introduction would cause significant prejudice and necessitate trial adjournment.

The defendants (appellants) brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of W.D. Newton J. dated August 28, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As the plaintiffs (respondents) did not file a Bill of Costs, the court made no order as to costs.

The appellants sought to appeal the dismissal of their motion to stay the action and, for one appellant, the trial judgment finding conspiracy, joint and several liability, disgorgement of profits, and punitive damages.

The trial judge had found that a former supervisory employee breached his fiduciary duty by securing construction work for his own companies, accruing over $10 million in profits, and that his common-law wife was deeply involved.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding no basis for appellate intervention.

The court held that the appeal of the stay motion dismissal was not properly before it due to a failure to appeal the original order within the prescribed deadline.

The court also found no error in the trial judge's factual findings regarding the conspiracy and disgorgement.

This motion concerned a request for a stay pending appeal of a judgment secured by Lithium Royalty Corporation (LRC) after a bifurcated liability hearing in a breach of contract action.

The moving parties (Orion entities) sought a full stay of the underlying action and their appeal.

The court dismissed the motion for a full stay of the underlying action but granted a partial stay against two specific respondents, Bellatrix Ltd. and Orion Mine Finance (Master) Fund I LP, preventing enforcement actions without leave, due to the apparent strength of their appeals regarding corporate separateness.

The court also ordered a stay of the appeal itself (COA-23-CV-1029) pending the conclusion of the underlying trial to promote judicial efficiency and avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

The plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action against an emergency room physician following the death of Elisha Shaw.

Ms. Shaw presented to the emergency room with severe abdominal pain radiating to her back, having previously undergone bariatric surgery.

The defendant physician discharged her without a surgical consult, despite her pain remaining unmanaged and a CT scan indicating a possible internal hernia.

Ms. Shaw returned to the hospital the next day, required emergency surgery for an ischemic bowel, and subsequently died.

The court found that the physician breached the standard of care by failing to request an urgent surgical consult and that this negligence caused Ms. Shaw's death, as earlier intervention would have prevented the bowel necrosis.

Damages were awarded to the estate and family members under the Family Law Act.

In a medical malpractice action alleging a misdiagnosed spinal cord injury, the defendants moved for an order requiring the plaintiff to undergo a neuropsychological assessment.

The motion was brought eight years after the statement of defence and nine months before trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence to support an allegation of cognitive impairment, and concluding that the elements of fairness, necessity, and prejudice weighed against ordering the examination at such a late stage.

The applicant, Lithium Royalty Corporation (LRC), brought an application to enforce an alleged contract for the purchase of an 85% interest in a lithium mining royalty from Orion Resource Partners (Orion).

The court addressed three main issues: whether LRC should be granted leave to add specific Orion entities as respondents (misnomer/amendment), whether the court had jurisdiction over these proposed respondents, and whether an enforceable contract was formed.

The court granted leave to add the Orion entities, finding they had voluntarily attorned to the court's jurisdiction.

It further found that a binding and enforceable contract for the royalty purchase was formed between LRC and Orion, and that this contract was not void under Nevada's Statute of Frauds.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action for defamation and misfeasance in public office, the successful defendants sought their costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The court applied the principles from Apotex and Rule 57.01, noting the serious allegations made, the complexity of the 10-year litigation, and the plaintiff's reasonable expectations.

The court found the defendants' reduced costs requests to be fair and reasonable, ordering the plaintiff to pay $280,000 to one defendant and $250,000 to the remaining defendants.

The plaintiff, a general surgeon, sued the hospital, its chief executive officer, and its chief of staff for defamation and misfeasance in public office after losing his hospital privileges.

The plaintiff alleged that the chief of staff defamed him in a letter and in oral statements, and that the defendants acted in bad faith to oust him from the hospital.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the oral defamatory statements were not proven and that the letter was protected by qualified privilege.

The court held it had jurisdiction to hear the misfeasance claim but dismissed it, finding no evidence of unlawful acts, malice, or improper purpose by the defendants.

The action was dismissed in its entirety.

This is an appeal concerning confidentiality orders in a civil action involving a minor plaintiff (P1), two minor defendants (D1, D2), and a school (XYZ School) with its employees.

The original motion judge had issued broad sealing and publication ban orders to protect the identities of the minor parties, extending to the school and its employees.

The appellants (P1 and Toronto Star) argued these orders were overbroad.

The Court of Appeal, applying the reformulated Sherman Estate test, found that while protecting the minors' identities was an important public interest, anonymizing the school and its employees was not necessary.

The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the broad sealing order and limiting the anonymity and publication bans to only the minor parties and their litigation guardians, along with specific identifying information, while allowing the school's identity to be public.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission alleged that Stableview Asset Management Inc. and Colin Fisher contravened the Securities Act by making untrue statements to clients, disregarding investment parameters, and failing to disclose conflicts of interest.

The parties submitted a settlement agreement for approval.

The Capital Markets Tribunal approved the settlement, finding it in the public interest.

Colin Fisher was ordered to pay a $750,000 administrative penalty, disgorge $300,000, and pay $270,000 in costs, subject to an installment plan.

Both respondents were permanently banned from participating in Ontario's capital markets, with limited exceptions for Fisher.

In an enforcement proceeding against Stableview Asset Management Inc. and Colin Fisher, Staff served draft affidavits of three witnesses.

Fisher brought a motion to exclude portions of the affidavits on the grounds that they were irrelevant, contained improper opinion evidence, drew legal conclusions, or were improper hearsay.

The Tribunal ruled that significant portions of the affidavits were inadmissible at the merits hearing because they were irrelevant to the Statement of Allegations or constituted improper opinion evidence from non-expert witnesses.

The appellant law firm appealed a Superior Court order that set aside an Associate Judge's decision to reinstate their action, which had been dismissed for delay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge correctly identified legal errors in the Associate Judge's application of the Reid v. Dow Corning Corp. test for reinstating actions dismissed for delay.

Specifically, the Associate Judge erred by treating periods of delay in isolation and by focusing on whether delay was "forgivable" rather than "sufficiently explained" despite evidence of egregious and unexplained delays.

The Court affirmed the motion judge's appropriate application of appellate jurisdiction and deference principles.

An employer sued a former supervisory employee, his spouse, and related corporations and trusts arising from a long-running undisclosed self-dealing scheme in which the employee caused the employer to retain companies he beneficially owned.

The court found the employee owed fiduciary duties because he had unilateral authority to hire contractors and approve invoices, and held he breached fiduciary duty, breach of contract, breach of confidence, and deceit by using confidential bid and budget information to direct work to his own entities without disclosure or consent.

The spouse was found liable in unlawful means conspiracy through deceitful conduct and by acting as a sham officer and director using a different name to conceal involvement.

Claims for phantom billing and conversion were dismissed for inadequate pleading and disclosure despite the court's view that the evidentiary record would otherwise have supported them.

The court ordered disgorgement of $10,264,237, punitive damages of $1,000,000, and granted accounting, tracing, and constructive trust relief.

This is a motion to quash appeals of a non-publication and sealing order.

The Court of Appeal determined that the order was final for the media (Toronto Star) as it finally determined their constitutional rights under s. 2(b) of the Charter, allowing their appeal to proceed as of right.

For the plaintiffs, the order was interlocutory, but the court exercised its discretion under s. 6(2) of the Courts of Justice Act to hear their appeal concurrently due to the interrelation of the issues.

The motion to quash the appeals was dismissed.