Dr. Turrall

The litigation guardian for the plaintiff, who sustained catastrophic injuries in a motor vehicle accident and lacked capacity, sought court approval for the settlement of his tort and accident benefits claims.

The court found the settlement amounts of $300,000 for the tort claim and $400,000 for the accident benefits claim to be fair and reasonable.

However, the court found the contingency fee agreement with the plaintiff's lawyers to be neither fair nor reasonable, as it was signed when the lawyers doubted the plaintiff's capacity.

The court reduced the legal fees to 17% for the accident benefits claim and 25% for the tort claim.

The plaintiff suffered a severe traumatic brain injury in a multi-vehicle highway collision.

He lost control of his vehicle after being cut off by an unidentified driver, struck the median, and was subsequently T-boned by the defendant's vehicle.

The court found the unidentified driver 70% liable and the defendant 30% liable for following too closely.

The plaintiff was awarded over $3.2 million in damages, primarily for future care costs.

The plaintiff's claim against his own insurer for unidentified motorist coverage was dismissed because the identified defendant was found partially liable.

The appellant appealed his first-degree murder conviction, arguing the trial judge failed to adequately instruct the jury on how his alcohol consumption related to the issue of planning and deliberation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting that alcohol consumption was a minor feature of the defence's case, which primarily relied on expert evidence regarding a major depressive episode.

The court found that the trial judge had referred to the alcohol evidence several times in the charge, and the lack of objection from experienced trial counsel indicated the instructions were fair.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of aggravated assault for allegedly burning her 3½-year-old granddaughter's face on a stove.

At trial, the unsworn child testified against the appellant, and both sides called expert witnesses regarding the burns, the child's memory, and child abuse.

The Supreme Court of Canada ordered a new trial, finding that while the child was properly permitted to testify, the trial judge erred by allowing an expert witness to testify that the child's behaviour indicated long-term abuse and to improperly comment on the child's credibility.

The Court also found errors in the Crown's cross-examination of a defence expert using unproven learned treatises.