Heather Vaughan

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a consent judgment settling a claim by the plaintiff and his parents.

The defendant argued that the settlement was reached by his insurer's appointed defence counsel without his personal lawyer's involvement, exposing him to liability exceeding his insurance policy limits through surviving crossclaims.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defence counsel had authority under the Ontario Automobile Policy to settle the claim, the settlement was within the scope of that authority, and the defendant failed to meet the legal test to set aside the consent judgment.

The court held that it was not in the interests of justice to set aside the judgment.

This decision addresses a challenge to the admissibility of an expert witness, Dr. David Gladstone, during a medical malpractice trial.

Counsel for the defendants argued that Dr. Gladstone was not impartial or objective and was in a conflict of interest due to a prior treating relationship with the plaintiff.

The court found that Dr. Gladstone had disclosed the prior relationship to the plaintiffs' counsel, believed it irrelevant to his expert opinion, and was confident in his objectivity.

The court also clarified that treating physicians can act as medical experts, with their duty solely to the adjudicative body, not to advocate for former patients.

The judge qualified Dr. Gladstone as an expert and permitted him to testify, criticizing the defendants' counsel for raising the challenge for the first time at trial as a 'trial by ambush'.

The court addressed a dispute in a medical malpractice jury trial regarding the wording of causation questions and whether the jury should provide reasons for their findings.

The plaintiffs proposed "caused or contributed to" language, while the defendants advocated for "but for" and requested reasons.

The court accepted the plaintiffs' "caused or contributed to" language, finding no compelling reason not to translate the "but for" test into everyday language, and rejected the request for the jury to provide reasons, citing the risk of confusion and violation of jury secrecy.

The defendant, Dr. Collings, brought a motion under Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the plaintiff's claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action, arguing expert witness immunity and that the damages claimed were speculative.

The plaintiff sued Dr. Collings, a neuropsychologist, for alleged negligence in failing to provide an expert report and records, which the plaintiff claimed led to a reduced settlement in an underlying motor vehicle accident action.

The court granted the defendant's motion, finding that expert witness immunity applied and, alternatively, that the claim for damages was wholly speculative and constituted "settlement remorse."