Darren Paul Blimkie

This motion concerned the finalization of a genetic testing requisition form.

Following previous orders for genetic testing, the plaintiffs objected to the defendants' initial requisition form, alleging bias and incompleteness.

The defendants subsequently provided revised forms incorporating the plaintiffs' expert's suggestions.

The court, noting the experts' agreement on the clinical content of the latest form, ordered the requisition form to be finalized consistent with the defendants' third proposed version, along with a prenatal history.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' objections regarding the form's content and the governing law/subcontracting terms, finding them without merit.

This medical malpractice action concerned the plaintiff's claim of chronic pain resulting from the defendants' alleged negligence in treating a ruptured Achilles tendon.

The court found that while Dr. Boivin breached the standard of care by failing to properly immobilize the plaintiff's foot or refer her to a specialist, and Kingsway Health Centre was negligent in administrative follow-up, these breaches did not cause the plaintiff's injuries.

The plaintiff's own non-compliance with medical advice and delay in seeking surgery were found to be the cause of her worsened condition.

The court also found the plaintiff to be an unreliable and incredible witness regarding her injuries and financial losses.

The action was dismissed.

In a medical malpractice action, the defendants moved for summary judgment against the plaintiff, who alleged back injuries due to improper treatment.

Despite four years of litigation and multiple extensions, including a specific timetable set by a previous judge, the plaintiff failed to serve any expert report to establish the standard of care or causation.

The defendants, conversely, provided expert reports asserting that the standard of care was met and that the plaintiff suffered no discernable back injury.

The court dismissed the action, finding no genuine issue requiring trial due to the absence of necessary expert evidence from the plaintiff.

Costs were awarded to the defendants, but were reduced by half due to the plaintiff's personal hardships.