Dr. Robert Myers

The plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action against the deceased's family physician following the deceased's sudden cardiac death.

The plaintiffs alleged the physician breached the standard of care by failing to elicit symptoms of coronary artery disease during a periodic health examination and by failing to send a referral for a stress test.

The court found the physician met the standard of care during the examination.

While the physician admitted breaching the standard of care by failing to send the referral later, the court concluded this breach did not cause the death, as the deceased would not have received treatment before his death due to specialist wait times, and the fatal arrhythmia was likely caused by pre-existing scarring rather than an acute ischemic event.

The action was dismissed.

The applicant's husband died of a fatal arrhythmia shortly after being involved in a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied death and funeral benefits, arguing that the deceased's pre-existing coronary artery disease would have inevitably caused a fatal cardiac event independent of the accident.

The Tribunal applied the purpose and causation tests, finding that the stress of the accident triggered myocardial ischemia and a fatal arrhythmia.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's expert cardiologist over the respondent's expert, concluding that the accident was the direct cause of the death.

The applicant and her children were awarded death benefits, funeral benefits, and interest on overdue amounts.

No costs were awarded.

The applicant sought to stay a Renewable Energy Approval amendment and an Ontario Energy Board (OEB) decision regarding a transmission line route modification near her property, pending judicial review and appeal.

The applicant argued she was denied procedural fairness as she was not properly notified of her right to a hearing before the Environmental Review Tribunal.

The Divisional Court found that while the denial of procedural fairness raised a serious issue, the applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm with corroborating medical or environmental evidence.

The court also found the OEB reasonably concluded it lacked jurisdiction to consider the applicant's health and environmental concerns and that she was not an 'owner of land affected' under the Ontario Energy Board Act.

Both motions for a stay were dismissed without costs.