Dr. Walker

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division, which upheld findings of professional misconduct and a penalty of permission to resign.

The misconduct involved the appellant's participation in two dishonest international financial transactions where advance fees were deposited into his trust account and disbursed without any loans being secured.

The appellant argued that the tribunal erred in its findings of knowledge and recklessness, misapplied penalty principles, and improperly dismissed interlocutory motions alleging systemic anti-Black racism and bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors of fact or errors of law in the tribunal's decisions on misconduct, penalty, costs, or its jurisdiction to order reimbursement to the Compensation Fund.

This motion concerned a claim for damages against a nurse, Lindsey Coyle, who falsified medication orders and failed to administer medication to patient Hermina Fletcher, leading to Ms. Fletcher's death from morphine toxicity.

Coyle had pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing death.

The plaintiffs, Ms. Fletcher's Estate, her son, and granddaughter, sued Coyle for damages.

Coyle did not defend the action.

The court found that the common law doctrine of fraudulent concealment suspended the limitation period, making the action timely.

Coyle was found liable.

The court assessed general damages for the Estate at $25,000 and damages for loss of care, guidance, and companionship under the Family Law Act for the son at $40,000 and the granddaughter at $25,000.

The motion also granted a sealing order, a bar order preventing Coyle from seeking contribution or indemnity, and awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis ($40,000), with the balance of the motion adjourned for the determination of punitive damages.

The appellant was convicted by jury of second degree murder, indecently interfering with human remains, and arson.

On appeal, the Alberta Court of Appeal upheld the convictions.

At trial, the Crown sought to lead rebuttal expert evidence but failed to disclose the expert report prior to the completion of the defence expert's testimony, and also failed to cross-examine the defence expert on the contents of that report.

The trial judge allowed the Crown's expert to testify but restricted the scope of the evidence as a remedial measure.

The Supreme Court held that the Crown's late disclosure and failure to cross-examine interfered with the accused's ability to know the case to meet and make full answer and defence.

The trial judge's remedial ruling was not capable of undoing the prejudice caused, and precluding the Crown's expert from testifying entirely was the only way to preserve the accused's right to a fair trial.

A new trial was ordered on all counts.

This ruling addresses final jury instructions in a criminal trial.

The court decided not to leave the partial defence of provocation to the jury due to a lack of air of reality, specifically regarding the absence of an identifiable indictable offense by the victim and suddenness.

However, the court found an air of reality for self-defence, warranting its submission to the jury, based on the accused's belief of threatened force and purpose of protection, despite concerns about the reasonableness of the force used.

A 'rolled-up' instruction, combining provocation, intoxication, fear, and suddenness for the mental intent of murder, was granted.

Limiting instructions were provided for the accused's after-the-fact conduct, clarifying its relevance to self-defence and intoxication but not to the intent for murder.

The applicant sought payment for statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including attendant care benefits, a non-earner benefit, and the cost of various assessments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to attendant care benefits or a non-earner benefit, as she failed to prove the expenses were reasonable and necessary or that she suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

However, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for a chronic pain assessment and two Assessments of Attendant Care Needs, finding them to be reasonable and necessary expenses, along with applicable interest.

The appellant surgeon appealed a finding of negligence after he mistakenly cut the respondent's aorta during a laparoscopic hiatus hernia operation.

The trial judge drew an inference of negligence from circumstantial evidence, rejecting the appellant's explanations of medical misadventure.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings or inference-drawing process.