Dr. Kumar

This is a status review application under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 concerning three sibling children in the care of the Children's Aid Society of Algoma.

The children have been in society care for over five years following apprehension in November 2014 based on allegations of inappropriate discipline.

The court conducted a contested trial to determine whether the children should be returned to their mother, placed with their maternal grandmother, or remain in extended society care.

The judgment addresses complex evidentiary issues regarding hearsay statements of children, the credibility of witnesses, and the application of the best interests test under the CYFSA.

Following a 70-day medical malpractice jury trial where the plaintiff was awarded $3.75 million in damages, the court determined the appropriate quantum of costs.

The plaintiff sought over $3.3 million in costs and disbursements, while the defendants argued for a significantly lower amount, citing proportionality and excessive hours.

The court analyzed the Rule 57 factors, noting the complexity of the case, the necessity of extensive preparation by plaintiff's counsel, and the fact that defence costs themselves exceeded $3.2 million.

The court fixed the plaintiff's costs at $2,404,765 for fees and $628,387 for disbursements, totaling $3,033,152.

During a medical malpractice jury trial, the defendant physicians sought leave under Rule 53.08 to file a supplementary expert report and to elicit testimony from their experts on matters not explicitly stated in their reports.

The court denied leave for the supplementary report, finding it failed to comply with Rule 53.03 by omitting the reasons for its conclusions, and its admission would cause undue prejudice to the plaintiffs.

The court also ruled on several evidentiary objections, narrowly interpreting the 'latency' principle.

The court held that experts cannot use conclusory statements in their reports to ambush opposing parties with new reasons or theories at trial, though exceptions were made where testimony directly responded to new developments during the trial.

Prior to a medical malpractice jury trial, the court ruled on several procedural and evidentiary motions.

The plaintiffs had entered into a Pierringer Agreement with the defendant hospital and nurses, leaving only the physicians as defendants.

The court ruled that both the plaintiffs and the physicians could cross-examine the settling nurses at trial.

The court also determined the sequencing and phrasing of jury questions, ruling that standard of care must be determined before causation, and permitting 'caused or contributed' language due to the presence of multiple tortfeasors.

Finally, the court allowed the plaintiffs to use photographs of the amputations in their opening address but restricted the experts' use of lengthy PowerPoint presentations.

The grievor, who suffered from Bi-Polar Affective Disorder, submitted a letter of resignation shortly after being discharged from an involuntary psychiatric admission.

The employer refused to allow him to rescind the resignation, arguing it was valid and voluntary.

The union grieved, arguing the grievor lacked the capacity to form the subjective intent to resign due to an exacerbation of his mental illness.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievor was exhibiting classic symptoms of the manic phase of his disorder, which impaired his ability to think rationally and logically.

The Board preferred the evidence of the grievor's treating psychiatrist over the employer's expert, concluding the grievor lacked the capacity to form the intent to resign.

The grievance was allowed and the grievor was reinstated to sick leave status.