Dr. Hyatt

The defendant physician in a medical malpractice action sought an extension under rr. 53.03(4) and 53.08(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to serve three late expert reports.

The court granted the motion with respect to one report, finding that the unexpected death of the originally retained expert constituted a reasonable explanation for the delay.

However, the court denied the motion for the remaining two reports, holding that trial counsel's admitted inattentiveness to the file and deliberate choice to prioritize other matters did not constitute a reasonable explanation, and that the conjunctive test under the amended r. 53.08(1) required dismissal absent satisfaction of that threshold.

This is an appeal in a medical malpractice case where the appellant, Dr. Marshall Zaitlen, challenged a jury's verdict finding him liable for damages to Sean Henry due to a delayed diagnosis of a spinal dural arteriovenous (SDAV) fistula.

The appellant argued that the jury's finding on the standard of care was unreasonable, their explanations for conclusions revealed non-judicial conduct, and the future income loss award was improper.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the jury's verdict.

The court held that the jury's conclusions on breach of standard of care and causation were reasonable and supported by expert evidence, emphasizing the high deference accorded to civil jury verdicts and their explanations when read holistically.

The court also found the damages award for future income loss to be reasonable and consistent with the evidence, allowing for a finding of early retirement due to the injuries.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought a determination of catastrophic impairment based on a mental and behavioural disorder.

The respondent denied the claim, arguing the applicant's impairments were pre-existing and did not meet the threshold.

The Tribunal found that the accident was a necessary cause of the applicant's psychological impairment, applying the 'but for' test.

Preferring the evidence of the applicant's psychological expert over the respondent's assessors, the Tribunal concluded the applicant sustained a marked impairment in all four spheres of functioning.

The application for a catastrophic impairment determination was granted, but the claim for an award for unreasonable delay was dismissed.

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 plaintiff suffered a severe traumatic brain injury in a multi-vehicle highway collision.

He lost control of his vehicle after being cut off by an unidentified driver, struck the median, and was subsequently T-boned by the defendant's vehicle.

The court found the unidentified driver 70% liable and the defendant 30% liable for following too closely.

The plaintiff was awarded over $3.2 million in damages, primarily for future care costs.

The plaintiff's claim against his own insurer for unidentified motorist coverage was dismissed because the identified defendant was found partially liable.