3 total
A mother who fractured her infant child's limbs received a 15-month conditional sentence due to postpartum depression.
S.B. pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm to her 8-month-old infant, R.B., who sustained multiple fractures.
The court considered aggravating factors such as the victim's age, breach of trust, and delay in seeking medical attention, alongside mitigating factors including S.B.'s mental health issues, reduced cognitive capabilities, postpartum depression, and guilty plea.
Applying sentencing principles from R. v. McCauley and R. v. Habib, the court found special mitigating circumstances warranted a conditional sentence.
S.B. was sentenced to a 15-month conditional sentence, followed by 36 months probation, a 10-year section 110 order, and a DNA order.
Solicitor’s negligence claim dismissed for failure to prove causation or damages.
The defendant law firm moved for summary judgment dismissing a former client’s action for solicitor’s negligence arising from a failed motor vehicle personal injury claim.
The plaintiff alleged the lawyers mishandled the underlying litigation and caused her to lose at trial.
The court held that even if deficiencies in the lawyers’ conduct were assumed, the plaintiff could not prove that any breach caused her loss or that she lost a viable chance of success.
The evidence showed the poor trial outcome resulted from weaknesses in the plaintiff’s case rather than the lawyers’ conduct.
The plaintiff’s claim for repayment of legal fees was also barred by res judicata based on a prior court‑approved settlement of the fees dispute.
Appeal allowed in part; defence medical by neurologist upheld, but psychiatric examination set aside for lack of evidence.
The appellants appealed a motion judge's order requiring the plaintiff to undergo three defence medical assessments by a psychiatrist, a neurologist, and a neuropsychologist.
The appellants did not object to the neuropsychologist but challenged the other two.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal regarding the neurologist, finding the motion judge reasonably relied on the neuropsychologist's evidence that a neurological exam was necessary to determine organic brain injury.
However, the court allowed the appeal regarding the psychiatrist, as there was no evidence explaining why a psychiatric assessment was warranted in addition to the other examinations.