Craig Edwards

The plaintiff, Tylor D'Aoust, sued his pharmacist and pharmacy for alleged negligence in failing to warn him about the side effects of prescribed medication (oxazepam) after a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff, who had a history of opioid addiction and mental health issues, claimed the lack of warning contributed to his impaired driving.

The court assessed the standard of care for a community-based pharmacist, the credibility of the witnesses, and the issue of causation.

The court found that the pharmacist met the professional standard of care by providing verbal counselling, including a warning about operating a motor vehicle, to the plaintiff's authorized agent (his mother).

The court also concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the oxazepam caused the accident, finding that the accident was not unavoidable and was not caused by the medication.

The action was dismissed.

Following the successful dismissal of a medical malpractice action on summary judgment due to the expiry of the limitation period, the defendants sought their costs.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the defendant doctor, finding the amounts claimed reasonable and proportionate.

The defendant clinic was awarded substantial indemnity costs from the date of its offer to settle, as the plaintiffs' continued opposition to the motion was unreasonable given their failure to produce an expert report.

In a motor vehicle personal injury action, the plaintiff sought an order compelling the tortfeasor’s insurer, added as a statutory third party after denying coverage, to answer written interrogatories and deliver an affidavit of documents explaining the basis for its denial of coverage.

The information was sought to determine whether the insurer’s liability was reduced to the statutory minimum by operation of law, which would affect the plaintiff’s entitlement to underinsured coverage under the OPCF 44R endorsement from his own insurer.

The court held that the facts underlying the denial of coverage were relevant to the plaintiff’s claim for underinsured motorist coverage and fell within the rationale of Rule 31.06(4) concerning disclosure of insurance and conditions affecting its availability.

The statutory third party insurer could not refuse discovery wholesale on the basis of privity or potential prejudice, though it could raise privilege or prejudice objections on a question‑by‑question basis.

The court ordered the insurer to answer the interrogatories and produce a sworn affidavit of documents.