5 total
Divisional Court grants leave for late expert reports, holding Rule 53.08 requires balancing interests of justice.
The appellant physician in a medical malpractice action appealed a motion judge's decision denying leave to file late-served causation and damages expert reports under Rule 53.08.
The motion judge had applied a strict conjunctive test, finding no reasonable explanation for the delay despite acknowledging a lack of prejudice.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge erred by failing to apply a balanced approach that considers the overall interests of justice, as established in recent jurisprudence.
The Court found that the delay was not tactical, did not prejudice the respondents or delay the trial, and that denying leave would disproportionately prejudice the appellant's ability to defend the action on its merits.
Extension granted for one late expert report but denied for two others.
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.
The successful First Nation was awarded over $3.2 million in partial indemnity costs, apportioned among the Crown and municipal defendants.
The Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation, having been entirely successful in the liability phase of a bifurcated proceeding concerning the status of the "Disputed Beach" as reserve land, sought costs.
This endorsement addresses the costs awards and apportionment among the multiple defendants.
The court awarded Saugeen their costs on a partial indemnity scale, totaling $3,221,802.54, on a joint and several liability basis.
These costs were apportioned for indemnification purposes among Canada (10%), Ontario (40%), and the Town of South Bruce Peninsula (50%).
Additionally, the court granted Canada a Sanderson order, requiring the Town to pay Canada $470,000 in partial indemnity costs, recognizing Canada's success on the essential issue of the reserve boundary location.
The Town's claim for costs against Canada was dismissed.
The Court of Appeal upheld a civil jury's medical malpractice verdict and damages award, emphasizing the exceptionally high deference owed to jury findings.
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.
Court significantly reduced claimed litigation costs after personal injury jury trial.
Following a jury trial in a motor vehicle personal injury action where liability was admitted and damages were awarded, the court determined the appropriate costs award.
The plaintiffs sought over $365,000 in fees and disbursements, including substantial indemnity costs after an offer to settle.
The defendant conceded entitlement to costs but argued the claimed fees and some disbursements were excessive.
Applying the principles under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found the absence of a detailed Bill of Costs and the involvement of multiple law firms made it difficult to assess duplication and reasonableness of services.
The court reduced the requested amounts and fixed total costs, including fees, threshold motion costs, and allowable disbursements, at $157,292.57 inclusive of HST.