Carole J. Piovesan

The appellant, a general surgeon, appealed a trial judgment finding him liable for medical negligence in the treatment of an 11-year-old patient who presented with abdominal pain.

The surgeon discharged the patient without ordering imaging or hospital admission, providing discharge instructions that the patient should only return if her condition worsened.

The patient's appendix subsequently ruptured, causing significant bowel damage.

The trial judge found the surgeon breached the standard of care in both his assessment and discharge instructions, and that causation was established.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings on standard of care or causation.

The court also addressed the inordinate delay in releasing reasons but concluded it did not impede fair adjudication.

The plaintiff, IMG Canada Limited, sued General Motors of Canada Limited and MacLaren McCann Canada Inc. for breach of an alleged oral two-year sponsorship agreement and, alternatively, for negligent misrepresentation.

IMG claimed an oral contract was formed on November 3, 2015, for Cadillac's sponsorship of Taste of Toronto 2016 and 2017.

The court found no oral agreement due to a lack of certainty of essential terms (specifically price) and no intention to create a legally binding agreement, as evidenced by ongoing negotiations and the requirement for a formal written contract.

The negligent misrepresentation claim, alleging Momentum failed to communicate Cadillac's concerns, was also dismissed because the plaintiff could not prove damages resulted from the alleged misrepresentation, as it was too late to mitigate losses by the time the misrepresentation occurred.

All claims were dismissed.

The plaintiffs sought certification of a proposed $2.5 billion class proceeding against an insurer arising from alleged misrepresentations in the sale and administration of universal life insurance policies originally issued by another insurer.

The defendant opposed certification and brought a cross‑motion for summary judgment arguing the representative plaintiffs’ claims were statute‑barred.

The court held that the alleged misrepresentation, deceit, good faith, and rescission claims lacked commonality and largely mirrored deficiencies identified in prior appellate authority concerning insurance misrepresentation class actions.

The court further found most negligent misrepresentation claims were statute‑barred under applicable provincial limitation statutes, while certain breach of contract claims relating to cost‑of‑insurance and administrative fee adjustments were not clearly time‑barred but required further evidentiary development.

Certification was dismissed except that the motion was adjourned to permit further evidence regarding potential breach of contract claims concerning cost‑of‑insurance and administrative fee calculations.

The accused, a medical assistant at a colonoscopy clinic, was charged with sexual assault on a patient who alleged he was fondled multiple times during a routine colonoscopy procedure.

The complainant testified he was sedated but conscious throughout the procedure and experienced excruciating pain.

The accused denied the allegations and testified he had no specific recollection of the complainant's procedure.

The defence called the performing physician and an expert psychiatrist in psychopharmacology.

The court found the accused credible and his denial sincere.

The court also found significant frailties in the complainant's evidence, including inconsistencies regarding his position during the procedure, his recollection of the room layout, the type of gown worn, and the timing of his complaint.

Expert evidence established that anaesthesia-induced sexual hallucinations are a recognized pharmacological phenomenon.

The court acquitted the accused, finding the crown had failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.