Gavin MacKenzie

The defendants sought costs personally against the plaintiff's counsel following a mistrial.

The mistrial was declared due to the plaintiff's counsel's failure to disclose a conflict of interest involving her husband's medical assessment company, which retained the plaintiff's expert witnesses and significantly marked up their invoices.

The court found that the counsel's conduct frustrated and interfered with the administration of justice, noting her lack of candour and failure to adhere to representations previously made to the Law Society.

The court ordered the plaintiff's counsel to personally pay the costs of the mistrial.

The appellants appealed a jury verdict dismissing their medical negligence action arising from delayed diagnosis and treatment of an anastomotic leak following routine bowel surgery, which resulted in septic shock and bilateral below-knee amputations.

The jury found five defendants breached the standard of care but that none of the breaches caused the injuries.

The Court of Appeal addressed the proper causation test in delayed diagnosis cases involving multiple tortfeasors, finding that the trial judge's use of the word "necessary" from Clements in jury questions and instructions was problematic and that the phrase "caused or contributed to" should not have been rejected.

However, the court held that the jury clearly accepted the defence theory that a rare necrotizing infection, not the delay, caused the injuries, and no reformulation of questions or instructions would have changed the verdict.

Following a successful motion by certain defendant insurers seeking a declaration that their law firm could continue acting despite the arrival of a lawyer who had previously acted for the opposing party, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The unsuccessful party argued that the motion arose from circumstances created by the law firm’s hiring decision and that each party should bear its own costs, or alternatively that the amount sought was excessive.

The court applied the principles governing costs under s.131.1 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing fairness and reasonableness rather than strict indemnification.

Although the successful defendants claimed approximately $59,800, the court found that amount excessive for a half‑day motion.

Costs were fixed at $42,000 payable within 30 days.

The defendants brought a motion for a declaration that an ethical screen implemented by their counsel of record was sufficient to prevent the disclosure of the plaintiff's confidential information after a lawyer who previously represented the plaintiff joined the firm.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion to disqualify the firm due to a conflict of interest.

The court applied the test from MacDonald Estate v. Martin and considered the Law Society's guidelines for ethical screens.

Finding that the firm had implemented timely and comprehensive institutional measures, the court concluded that a reasonably informed person would be satisfied that no use of confidential information would occur.

The defendants' motion was granted and the plaintiff's cross-motion was dismissed.

The Court allowed the appeal and held that the law firm breached the duty of loyalty by accepting a retainer directly adverse to a current client without consent, then breaching duties of commitment and candour by dropping existing retainers and failing to disclose.

The bright line rule against concurrent adverse representation applies to related and unrelated matters, subject to limited scope constraints.

The matter was remitted for redetermination of remedy focused on maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice.