Dr. Lee

The appellants appealed a jury verdict dismissing their medical negligence action arising from delayed diagnosis and treatment of an anastomotic leak following routine bowel surgery, which resulted in septic shock and bilateral below-knee amputations.

The jury found five defendants breached the standard of care but that none of the breaches caused the injuries.

The Court of Appeal addressed the proper causation test in delayed diagnosis cases involving multiple tortfeasors, finding that the trial judge's use of the word "necessary" from Clements in jury questions and instructions was problematic and that the phrase "caused or contributed to" should not have been rejected.

However, the court held that the jury clearly accepted the defence theory that a rare necrotizing infection, not the delay, caused the injuries, and no reformulation of questions or instructions would have changed the verdict.

A status review application under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act concerning two young children (ages 4 and 5) who had been apprehended and placed in foster care.

The Windsor-Essex Children's Aid Society sought a finding that the children remain in need of protection and sought a Crown wardship order without access.

The respondent mother sought to have the children returned to her care subject to society supervision.

The court found that the children remain in need of protection due to the mother's inability to consistently manage the children's complex behavioural and emotional needs despite participating in numerous parenting programs over three years.

The court ordered Crown wardship with no access, finding that the children's best interests were served by remaining in their stable foster placement with Ms. Ba., where their emotional and behavioural needs were being appropriately met.

The court determined costs following a lengthy custody and access dispute where the applicant mother was found to have emotionally abused the children and engaged in severe parental alienation against the respondent father.

The court found the mother acted in bad faith throughout the proceedings, litigating with impunity to excise the father from the children's lives.

Applying Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules, the court awarded the successful father full recovery costs fixed at $400,000.

Following two family law trials concerning custody and access of three children, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The court had previously found the mother in contempt of an access order and concluded that she acted in bad faith by emotionally manipulating the children and undermining their relationship with their father.

The father was successful at both the original trial and the subsequent review.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and considering the mother’s bad faith litigation conduct, the court ordered full recovery costs.

The mother was required to pay a substantial costs award reflecting extensive legal work and professional involvement necessitated by the litigation.

The appellant physician appealed decisions of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons finding her guilty of professional misconduct and incompetence following the death of a patient who underwent high-volume liposuction.

The Committee found she breached standards of practice regarding extraction volumes, informed consent, and post-operative care, and that her website advertising violated regulations banning testimonials and superlatives.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Committee's findings on the standard of practice, its evidentiary rulings, and its conclusion that the advertising ban was a justified limit on freedom of expression under s. 1 of the Charter.

The penalty restricting her practice to acting as a surgical assistant in a hospital was also upheld as reasonable.

The plaintiff brought a motion for judgment under Rule 19.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure after the defendant was noted in default in a motor vehicle accident action.

The court found the defendant entirely liable for the collision and accepted evidence that the plaintiff suffered chronic pain, orthopedic injuries, and depression that significantly impaired his ability to perform flooring installation work.

The court held that the plaintiff met the statutory threshold under s. 267.5(3) of the Insurance Act for a permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function.

Non‑pecuniary damages were assessed at $65,000 before the statutory deductible, with additional awards for future housekeeping capacity, future medical expenses, and loss of future earning capacity.

Claims for past income loss and past housekeeping expenses were dismissed for lack of sufficient proof.

Following a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident where the plaintiffs were awarded $137,000 plus interest, the court determined costs.

The plaintiffs' recovery exceeded the defendant's offer to settle of $125,000.

The court found the plaintiffs were the successful parties and awarded them partial indemnity costs.

After reducing fees for duplication and disallowing disbursements for experts who did not testify, the court awarded the plaintiffs $322,500 in costs.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to caregiver, housekeeping, and medical benefits.

The insurer denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's impairments were not caused by the accident.

The arbitrator found that the applicant failed to disclose pre-existing neck and shoulder complaints to his treating practitioners and assessors, and did not report the accident to his family doctor for several months.

The arbitrator concluded that the applicant's impairments were likely caused by pre-existing pathology and the physical strain of caring for his ailing wife, rather than the accident.

The claims were dismissed, save for a small outstanding balance on a previously approved treatment plan.

The appellant appealed his murder conviction, raising several grounds including errors in the jury charge regarding reasonable doubt, failure to give a Vetrovec warning, improper comments on the evidence, and the admission of crime scene photographs and prior statements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible errors in the trial judge's instructions or evidentiary rulings.