Emily Vaillancourt

The appellant doctor appealed a trial judgment finding him liable for negligently administering a tetanus vaccine, which caused the respondent to develop a frozen shoulder and prevented her from working.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in assessing credibility, applying the 'but for' causation test, and addressing mitigation of damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reviewable errors in the trial judge's credibility findings, causation analysis, or conclusion that the appellant failed to prove mitigation was possible.

Meta brought a motion to dismiss or permanently stay Torstar's application, arguing that the dispute should be litigated in California pursuant to forum selection clauses in their News Innovation Agreement.

The court found that the forum selection clauses in Meta's Terms of Service and Commercial Terms applied to users of Meta's products, not to partners licensing content to Meta, and were therefore unclear and inapplicable.

Furthermore, the court held that even if the clauses applied, Torstar demonstrated strong cause not to enforce them, as the dispute involved the interpretation of the federal Online News Act and implicated Canadian public policy and constitutional values regarding freedom of the press.

The appellants challenged orders striking a defence and dismissing a related claim for disclosure non-compliance.

The court found the motion judge gave thorough reasons, exercised discretion within a case-managed context under rule 37.15, and committed no error warranting intervention.

The appeal was dismissed with substantial costs.