Domenic A. Crolla

The Canadian Medical Protective Association and the Ontario Medical Association brought applications for judicial review of an Adjudicator's order requiring the disclosure of a 2004 Memorandum of Understanding under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The applicants argued the OMA was not a 'trade union' under the Act and that the agreement contained confidential third-party information exempt from disclosure.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, upholding the Adjudicator's broad interpretation of 'trade union' and finding her conclusion that the information was not 'supplied in confidence' to be reasonable.

The appellants, two family physicians, appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for medical malpractice and awarding over $10 million in damages for catastrophic brain injuries sustained by the infant plaintiff during birth due to shoulder dystocia.

The appellants argued that the trial judge's reasons were inadequate and that he ignored or misapprehended defence expert evidence regarding the standard of care.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's numerous findings of negligence were amply supported by the evidence, including adverse credibility findings against the appellants and admissions made by the appellants themselves.

The court concluded that the reasons for judgment were adequate and permitted meaningful appellate review.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of a medical malpractice action arising from the death of a patient undergoing treatment for tuberculosis.

The appeal focused on recusal, alleged negligence in the physician’s monitoring and follow-up system, and causation.

The court held that, although the trial judge had improperly received information caught by Rule 50.03, the circumstances did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias requiring recusal.

The court further held there was no basis to disturb the findings that the follow-up system did not establish negligence on the physician’s part and that any failure of follow-up did not cause or contribute to the death, because the accepted evidence showed no signs of hepatitis at the critical January assessment.