Dr. Michel Rathbone

The infant plaintiff suffered a severe and permanent brachial plexus injury during birth after encountering shoulder dystocia.

The plaintiffs brought a medical negligence action against the delivering obstetrician, alleging he applied excessive downward traction.

The defendant argued the injury was caused by maternal propulsive forces.

The court found that the defendant breached the standard of care by applying more than gentle downward traction, which caused the injury.

The court awarded $811,564 in total damages, including non-pecuniary damages, future care costs, future loss of income, and Family Law Act damages for the family.

The plaintiff suffered a severe traumatic brain injury in a motor vehicle accident while riding as a passenger in a vehicle driven by the defendant.

Prior to the accident, both the plaintiff and the driver had consumed alcohol at the All Star Tap & Grill House.

The court found the driver 80% liable for the accident due to impaired driving and the commercial host 20% liable for over-serving alcohol and failing to prevent the intoxicated driver from operating a vehicle.

The plaintiff was found 25% contributorily negligent for failing to wear a seatbelt, entering a vehicle with an impaired driver, and encouraging the driver to speed.

The court assessed the plaintiff's damages, including $300,000 for non-pecuniary damages, significant amounts for past and future loss of income, and over $9 million for the cost of future care.

Family Law Act claims were also awarded to the plaintiff's parents and siblings.

The plaintiff underwent emergency surgery performed by the defendant thoracic surgeon to repair a paraesophageal hiatus hernia.

During the operation, a bougie became stuck in the plaintiff's esophagus, and its removal caused a de-gloving injury to the esophagus.

Several weeks later, the plaintiff suffered a severe stroke.

The plaintiffs sued the surgeon for medical malpractice, alleging negligence in the performance of the surgery and that the resulting esophageal injury caused the stroke.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the surgeon met the standard of care and that the stroke was cardioembolic, caused by atrial fibrillation, and unrelated to the esophageal injury.

The plaintiff was severely injured in a motorcycle accident in Jamaica.

She retained the defendant lawyer to investigate potential insurance claims.

The lawyer advised that her family's Ontario automobile insurance policy would not provide accident benefits due to a territorial restriction limiting coverage to North America, and thus did not file an application for benefits before the two-year limitation period expired.

The plaintiff sued the lawyer for professional negligence, arguing he should have filed the application to preserve her rights, especially given subsequent changes in case law.

The court dismissed the action, finding the lawyer met the standard of care of a reasonably competent expert in insurance law at the time, and that an application for benefits would likely have been denied anyway.

In a medical malpractice action arising from a three-year delay in diagnosing and treating an acoustic neuroma, the moving parties sought partial summary judgment identifying the specific injuries caused by the admitted negligence and dismissing the defence of contributory negligence.

The court held that the expert evidence on causation and the listed injuries was largely uncontroverted and that the injuries could be summarily established without a trial.

Applying the reasonable patient standard, the court also found no evidentiary basis for the allegation that the patient unreasonably missed appointments or delayed follow-up in a manner contributing to her injuries.

Partial summary judgment was granted listing the injuries and dismissing contributory negligence.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including caregiver and non-earner benefits, from her insurer.

The insurer terminated caregiver benefits after 104 weeks, prompting the plaintiff to sue for the benefits, as well as damages for bad faith and mental distress.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding that the claim was statute-barred because it was commenced more than two years after the insurer's clear refusal to pay.

Furthermore, the court held that even if the claim were not statute-barred, the plaintiff failed to prove she suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life, largely due to pre-existing conditions and a lack of objective medical evidence.

The claims for bad faith and mental distress were also dismissed as the insurer's conduct was reasonable and there was insufficient evidence of compensable distress.