D. Cruz

During a medical malpractice jury trial, the plaintiffs sought to qualify a paediatrician and neonatologist to give expert evidence on the standard of care applicable to the defendant family physician.

The defendants objected, arguing the expert was not a family physician and his evidence would be duplicative and prejudicial.

The court applied the two-stage test for expert evidence and held that the expert was qualified to testify on the minimum standard of care applicable to all physicians regarding well-baby checkups and head circumference measurements.

The court found the evidence was not overly complex or confusing and its benefit outweighed any potential prejudice.

Following the dismissal of their appeals from decisions of the Environmental Review Tribunal regarding wind farm approvals, the appellant landowners argued they should not pay costs because the litigation was in the public interest.

The Divisional Court held that while the appeals were not public interest litigation that would merit no costs, they did contain a strong public interest component regarding the constitutionality of the legislative regime.

Taking this into account, along with the lack of particularity in the respondents' bills of costs and the lower scale of costs typically awarded on appeals to the Divisional Court, the court awarded reduced partial indemnity costs to the successful respondents totaling $67,000.

The appellants, residents living near three proposed wind turbine farms, appealed decisions of the Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) that confirmed the Director's issuance of Renewable Energy Approvals (REAs) for the projects.

The appellants argued that the statutory test requiring them to prove the projects would cause 'serious harm to human health' violated section 7 of the Charter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals, finding that the statutory test aligned with the jurisprudential threshold for section 7 claims and did not depart from the consensus scientific view on wind turbines.

The Court also upheld the ERT's treatment of lay witness evidence, its finding that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Director's REA issuance process for Charter compliance, and its discretionary decisions denying adjournments.

The successful appellants, Ostrander Point GP Inc. and the Director of the Ministry of the Environment, sought costs following their successful appeal of an Environmental Review Tribunal decision regarding a wind turbine development.

The respondents, Prince Edward County Field Naturalists (PECFN) and Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County (APPEC), argued that no costs should be awarded as it was public interest litigation.

The Divisional Court applied the five-factor test for public interest litigation and concluded that costs should be awarded, as the respondents had a direct interest and the appellant was a private actor.

The court fixed costs at $40,000 against PECFN and $10,000 against APPEC, plus transcript disbursements.