Dr. Wood

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 7 for approval of a $6,625,000 settlement in a medical negligence action arising from severe birth injuries to the minor plaintiff.

The court approved the overall settlement amount but found the solicitor's proposed contingency fee of over $1.5 million to be unreasonable given the time expended and the results achieved.

The court reduced the legal fees to $1,000,000 and also reduced the proposed allocation of funds to the parents' Family Law Act claims to ensure the minor plaintiff received adequate funds for his lifelong care needs.

During a criminal proceeding, the defence sought to qualify a forensic odontologist as an expert on the diagnosis, causation, and assessment of oral maxillofacial trauma.

The court applied the admissibility framework for expert evidence and concluded the proposed expert possessed sufficient expertise to testify about diagnosis of mandible injuries and the mechanism and pattern of jaw fractures.

However, the court found the expert lacked specialized education, research, and practical experience regarding causation, direction of force, or magnitude of force relating to jaw fractures.

Applying the gatekeeping function for expert evidence, the court also held that permitting opinions on causation would risk intruding on the ultimate issue for the jury and could improperly influence fact‑finding.

The expert was therefore limited to opinion evidence concerning diagnosis and injury patterns.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault and sexual assault with a weapon against his wife.

At trial, a police officer gave lay opinion evidence that a mark on the appellant's finger was a bite mark, corroborating the complainant's testimony.

On appeal, the appellant sought to introduce fresh evidence from a forensic dentist concluding the mark was not a bite mark.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that while the due diligence criterion was not met, the fresh evidence was sufficiently cogent that it could reasonably be expected to have affected the trial judge's credibility assessment and the ultimate verdict.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their medical malpractice action against a hospital, nurses, and doctors following the birth of a child who suffered severe brain damage due to oxygen deprivation prior to an emergency Caesarean section.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding that while there were shortfalls in care, the cause of the oxygen deprivation was unknown and therefore not caused by the defendants' negligence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial on liability, holding that the trial judge erred in law by deciding the issue of factual causation before determining whether the standard of care was breached, and that the trial judge's reasons were insufficient to explain why the plaintiffs' theory of liability was rejected.