Dr. Zoutman

Following a 70-day medical malpractice jury trial where the plaintiff was awarded $3.75 million in damages, the court determined the appropriate quantum of costs.

The plaintiff sought over $3.3 million in costs and disbursements, while the defendants argued for a significantly lower amount, citing proportionality and excessive hours.

The court analyzed the Rule 57 factors, noting the complexity of the case, the necessity of extensive preparation by plaintiff's counsel, and the fact that defence costs themselves exceeded $3.2 million.

The court fixed the plaintiff's costs at $2,404,765 for fees and $628,387 for disbursements, totaling $3,033,152.

The defendant dentist brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' dental malpractice action, arguing there was no genuine issue requiring a trial on causation.

The defendant relied on two Rule 53.03 compliant expert reports stating the dental procedure did not cause the plaintiff's infective endocarditis.

The plaintiffs relied on the opinion of the plaintiff's treating cardiologist, who opined the defendant did not wait long enough for prophylactic antibiotics to take effect.

The court found the treating cardiologist was a 'participant expert' whose opinion was admissible without complying with Rule 53.03.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, holding that a trial was required to resolve the competing medical opinions on causation.