Eli D. Mogil

Following the refusal of an interlocutory injunction sought by the landlord applicants to compel a hotel operator to continue operating a hotel under a particular brand, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicants argued that an indemnity clause in a lease entitled them to full indemnity costs from a former tenant alleged to have breached the lease.

The court held that the indemnity clause did not permit the landlord to recover litigation costs from a prior tenant where the present tenant supported the motion and where the lease’s procedures regarding a change of operating name had not been followed.

Even if the clause applied, the court would decline to exercise its discretion to award costs to the applicants.

Costs were awarded instead to the successful respondent hotel operator.

The plaintiff brought a medical negligence action alleging a wrongful hysterectomy performed during a scheduled myomectomy procedure.

The physician converted the surgery intra-operatively to a hysterectomy after discovering adenomyosis, asserting that the patient had been informed of and accepted the risk.

The court found the physician failed to disclose the possibility of a non-emergency hysterectomy performed solely to relieve pain and bleeding symptoms, and that the patient had not consented to such a procedure.

Applying the informed consent test from Reibl v Hughes and Arndt v Smith, the court held that a reasonable person in the patient’s circumstances—who strongly desired pregnancy and had an upcoming fertility consultation—would not have accepted the risk.

Liability was established and the court awarded $75,000 in general damages for loss of reproductive capacity and related psychological harm.

Following a lengthy medical malpractice trial, the court had found one physician negligent and liable while two co-defendants were not found liable.

The parties had previously agreed that damages would be fixed at $430,000 inclusive of interest if liability were established.

The successful plaintiffs sought costs exceeding $529,000 including substantial indemnity fees and disbursements.

The court considered the complexity of medical negligence litigation, the reasonable expectations of the parties, the absence of a formal Rule 49 offer to settle, and the fact that the plaintiffs succeeded against only one of three defendants.

Applying the principle of proportionality and overall reasonableness, the court reduced the requested amount and fixed costs at $400,000 inclusive of disbursements and exclusive of taxes.

The applicants sought an interlocutory injunction compelling a hotel operator to continue managing and branding a hotel under a particular brand pending determination of a permanent injunction application.

They argued the lease required continued operation of the hotel using the brand and associated operational infrastructure despite expiry of the hotel management agreement.

The court applied the RJR‑MacDonald test and held that the lease provisions did not clearly impose an obligation requiring the operator to continue providing the full operational benefits of the brand.

The alleged harm, primarily reduced participation rent and potential reputational impacts, was found to be quantifiable and compensable in damages.

The balance of convenience favoured the operator, which would otherwise be compelled to operate a business relationship it no longer wished to maintain.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing her claims against the respondent physicians and hospital arising from her involuntary committal in a psychiatric wing.

The motion judge granted summary judgment solely because the appellant failed to provide an expert opinion establishing a breach of the standard of care.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the appellant's claims included allegations of failure to follow statutory procedures under the Mental Health Act, which do not necessarily require expert medical opinion to be established.

The appellant Registrar appealed a Board decision granting a liquor licence to the respondent nightclub.

The appellant argued the Board failed to properly consider the past conduct of the respondent's principal and the public interest concerns of local residents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board applied the correct legal tests, properly weighed the evidence, and provided adequate reasons for its conclusions.