Dr. David Spence

The plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action against an emergency room physician following the death of their 27-year-old daughter from a cerebellar stroke.

The patient had presented to the emergency department with nausea, vomiting, and weakness, and was discharged with a diagnosis of intoxication.

The next day, she was found at home with severe trauma and a massive stroke, from which she died.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the physician met the standard of care, as the patient exhibited no focal neurological signs warranting a gait assessment or CT scan.

The court also found that causation was not proven, accepting expert evidence that the stroke likely occurred the following day due to trauma.

The plaintiff underwent emergency surgery performed by the defendant thoracic surgeon to repair a paraesophageal hiatus hernia.

During the operation, a bougie became stuck in the plaintiff's esophagus, and its removal caused a de-gloving injury to the esophagus.

Several weeks later, the plaintiff suffered a severe stroke.

The plaintiffs sued the surgeon for medical malpractice, alleging negligence in the performance of the surgery and that the resulting esophageal injury caused the stroke.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the surgeon met the standard of care and that the stroke was cardioembolic, caused by atrial fibrillation, and unrelated to the esophageal injury.

The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to attend a defence psychiatric assessment after the action had been set down for trial.

The plaintiff had served a new psychiatric expert report after the matter was set down, prompting the defendant's request to obtain a responding report.

The court granted leave under Rule 48.04 to bring the motion, finding it just in the circumstances.

The court ordered the plaintiff to attend the psychiatric assessment, emphasizing trial fairness and the defendant's right to respond to the plaintiff's new expert evidence with an expert of their choosing.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits for three years.

The insurer terminated benefits on the basis that the applicant did not meet the stricter test of being continuously prevented from engaging in any suitable occupation after 156 weeks.

The arbitrator found the applicant lacked credibility, as extensive video surveillance contradicted his claims of severe physical and cognitive disability, showing him engaging in vigorous activities and working as a waiter.

The arbitrator dismissed the claim for ongoing benefits, ordered repayment of an overpayment due to CPP benefits, and awarded the applicant only 50% of his arbitration expenses.