Dr. Clarke

The parties requested a consent adjournment of the pretrial and trial dates because the plaintiff served a late expert report after their original expert became ill.

The court convened a case conference and criticized both parties' conduct regarding the expert reports.

The court adjourned the pretrial to September but directed the defendant to obtain their expert's responding report by August 31, 2022, in an effort to preserve the October trial date.

The plaintiff was injured when a snow thrower tire rim exploded, causing a laceration to his shin.

The defendants admitted liability for the laceration but disputed the plaintiff's claim that he subsequently developed Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS).

The court found that the plaintiff did develop CRPS as a result of the incident, which permanently impacted his ability to work full-time.

The court rejected the defendants' arguments that the plaintiff's damages should be reduced due to pre-existing conditions, a subsequent motor vehicle accident, or a failure to mitigate.

The court awarded damages for non-pecuniary loss, past and future loss of income, future care costs, and Family Law Act claims, and declined to deduct disability benefits received by the plaintiff.

The appellant physician appealed the revocation of his certificate of registration by the Discipline Committee.

He had admitted to incompetence and professional misconduct, including boundary issues and poor clinical care.

The appellant argued the Committee ignored his prospects for rehabilitation and over-emphasized his disciplinary history.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Committee's conclusion that the appellant lacked insight and posed a serious risk to the public was reasonable and justified the revocation.

Following a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident where the plaintiff was awarded substantial damages, the defendant insurer brought a motion for a ruling that the plaintiff's claims did not meet the statutory threshold under the Insurance Act.

The court found that the plaintiff's chronic low back pain was caused by the accident and constituted a permanent serious impairment of an important physical function.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion, concluding that the plaintiff met the statutory threshold for non-pecuniary loss and future care costs.

The appellant physician appealed a trial judgment finding him 25% liable for negligence in failing to timely diagnose a newborn with phenylketonuria (PKU).

The infant had two borderline elevated screening tests, and the appellant ordered a third screening test rather than a diagnostic quantitative test.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by failing to apply the 'respectable minority principle' from ter Neuzen, asserting his decision was supported by expert evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge properly weighed the conflicting expert evidence, found the defence expert's opinion unreliable, and correctly concluded the standard of care required a diagnostic test.