Eric Pellegrino

This is an appeal in a class action concerning an infectious disease outbreak at a pain care centre.

The appellant, Dr. Stephen James, challenged the trial judge's findings of negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and the application of the limitation period, as well as the award of punitive damages and costs.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's conclusions that Dr. James breached the standard of care by failing to consistently use aseptic technique and to report/investigate infections.

The court affirmed the use of statistical evidence to establish a rebuttable presumption of causation for the class, and found no error in the breach of fiduciary duty or the appropriateness of punitive damages.

The appeal on costs, including the order for Dr. James to pay the successful co-defendant nurses' costs, was also dismissed.

The plaintiff sued an emergency room physician for medical malpractice after losing his left testicle to torsion.

The plaintiff alleged the physician breached the standard of care by failing to perform a cremasteric reflex test, order a repeat ultrasound, and refer him to a urologist when he presented to the emergency department with testicular pain.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the physician met the standard of care by reasonably diagnosing epididymitis based on the patient's history, presentation, and a recent ultrasound showing normal blood flow.

The court also found that causation was not established, as the plaintiff did not prove he was suffering from intermittent testicular torsion at the time or that a urological consult would have saved the testicle.

The moving defendant, an orthopedic surgeon, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the medical malpractice action against him, arguing the limitation period had expired.

The plaintiffs brought a cross-motion to correct a misnomer, seeking to replace 'John Doe' with the moving defendant.

The court found that there was a genuine issue for trial regarding when the plaintiffs reasonably could have discovered the moving defendant's potential liability for delayed care.

Both the summary judgment motion and the misnomer cross-motion were dismissed, with the issues left to be determined by the trial judge.

A case conference was held to set a schedule for the plaintiff's upcoming motion to amend pleadings and common issues in a certified class action.

The court established a timetable for the exchange of motion materials, expert reports, cross-examinations, and factums, and scheduled the motion to be heard on July 11 and 12, 2019.

Dr. Stephen Rose James sought leave to appeal portions of a motion judge's order that certified a class action and defined common issues, specifically regarding the wording of the breach of standard of care common issue and the certification of punitive damages as a common issue.

The court granted leave to appeal the breach of standard of care issue, finding serious debate regarding the procedure followed when the motion judge amended the common issue post-hearing without submissions.

However, leave to appeal the punitive damages common issue was refused, as it was deemed common to the class and not an issue extending beyond the parties' interests.

The plaintiff sought certification of a class action and partial summary judgment against an anesthesiologist and a pain clinic following an outbreak of staphylococcus aureus infections among patients who received epidural injections.

The court certified the action as a class proceeding, finding the criteria under the Class Proceedings Act were met.

The court also granted partial summary judgment, finding that the physician breached his duty of care regarding infection prevention and control practices, which established general causation for the class and specific causation for patients whose infections were genetically linked to the physician.

The plaintiff underwent cataract surgery performed by the defendant ophthalmologist.

Prior to surgery, the defendant measured the plaintiff's eyes using an older A-scan method, which produced highly variable results.

The defendant failed to inform the plaintiff of these variable results and the increased risk of not achieving her expected visual outcome, nor did he recommend the more accurate IOL Master method at that time.

The surgery resulted in significant under-correction (hyperopia).

To correct this, the plaintiff underwent a piggyback lens surgery, which subsequently caused severe dysphotopsia.

The court found the defendant breached the standard of care regarding informed consent by failing to disclose the material risks associated with the variable A-scan results.

The court established causation and awarded damages for pain and suffering, past income loss, future care costs, and a Family Law Act claim for the plaintiff's son.