Dr. Arnold

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused previously found unfit to stand trial on charges including assault and failing to comply with probation.

The accused suffers from schizoaffective disorder and an intellectual developmental disorder.

Relying on psychiatric evidence that the accused has no reality-based understanding of the proceedings and poses a significant threat to public safety, the Board unanimously found the accused remains permanently unfit to stand trial.

The Board ordered the continuation of the current Detention Order without amendment.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault and failing to comply with probation.

The hospital recommended maintaining the current Detention Disposition, citing concerns over the accused's housing stability and inappropriate social behaviours.

The Attorney General and the accused supported a Conditional Discharge with additional terms.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety but concluded that a Conditional Discharge with a specified residence and a consent to treatment clause was the necessary and appropriate disposition, as the hospital's concerns regarding eviction and readmission were speculative.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for an accused found not criminally responsible for sexual assault.

The accused has diagnoses of schizophrenia and cannabis use disorder.

Relying on uncontroverted expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety, particularly due to the risk of medication non-compliance and substance use without external supervision.

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing Detention Order.

The worker appealed a decision denying entitlement for bladder cancer and loss of earnings (LOE) benefits.

The worker argued the bladder cancer was caused by occupational exposures in the petrochemical industry or by radiation treatment for a previously accepted follicular lymphoma claim.

The Appeals Resolution Officer dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence that occupational exposures or the limited radiation treatment significantly contributed to the bladder cancer, noting the worker's smoking history as a major risk factor.

The claim for LOE benefits was also denied as the worker retired without functional limitations from the accepted lymphoma, and the bladder cancer was deemed non-compensable.

The plaintiff underwent a laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy performed by the defendant gynecologist.

Following the surgery, the plaintiff experienced incontinence and was diagnosed with a vesicovaginal fistula caused by two sutures inadvertently placed in her bladder.

The parties agreed on damages prior to trial, leaving only the issue of liability.

The court found that the defendant failed to adequately mobilize the bladder during the procedure, leading to the inadvertent suturing.

The court concluded that the placement of the sutures was the result of negligence rather than non-negligent surgical misadventure, and granted judgment for the plaintiff.

Following reasons for judgment in a medical malpractice action, the court considered supplementary costs submissions from the plaintiffs seeking recovery for additional expert and transcript expenses incurred after the initial costs materials were delivered.

The defendant argued the supplementary expert evidence was unnecessary due to the plaintiffs’ change in trial strategy.

The court held that litigants may reasonably adjust trial strategy and should not be penalized in costs where services appeared necessary at the time they were obtained.

The court accepted that the supplementary expert report and transcripts used for closing submissions were reasonable litigation expenses.

The plaintiffs were awarded the additional costs sought.

The appellant sued the federal government for sexual battery committed by an employee at a student residence 20 years earlier.

The trial judge awarded pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, finding the abuse caused the appellant's alcoholism and subsequent loss of earnings.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal set aside the pecuniary damages, applying a 'rehearing' standard of review to substitute its own view of the facts.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal in part, holding that the standard of review for findings of fact in Saskatchewan is 'palpable and overriding error', consistent with the rest of Canada.

The Court restored the past loss of earnings award but ordered it reduced for time spent in prison and social assistance received, and upheld the dismissal of the future loss of earnings award.