Heidi R. Brown

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking reconsideration and amendment of a prior endorsement that approved a minor's settlement in a tort action.

The motion sought to clarify or correct findings regarding the settlement quantum, structured settlements for minors, and the enforceability of contingency fee and referral fee agreements.

The court dismissed the motion for reconsideration, except for a minor accidental slip, reaffirming the narrow scope for judicial reconsideration of decisions before formal judgment entry, emphasizing that such motions are generally not a substitute for appeal.

The minor plaintiff was struck by a vehicle while crossing the road after collecting mail.

A settlement of $400,000 was reached at mediation.

The litigation guardian brought a motion for court approval of the settlement, legal fees under a contingency fee agreement, and a referral fee.

The court approved the settlement amount for the minor plaintiff but found the contingency fee agreement and referral fee agreement unenforceable due to non-compliance with statutory and Law Society requirements.

Legal fees were reduced and approved on a quantum meruit basis.

This motion sought approval of a settlement for a minor plaintiff who sustained a complex elbow fracture in a schoolyard slip and fall.

The defendants denied liability, raising issues of causation and damages.

The court approved the settlement of $32,133.90, finding it reasonable, fair, and in the minor plaintiff's best interests, consistent with Rule 7.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The decision also approved counsel's fees and disbursements, noting a reduction in the contingency fee and a negotiated reduction of OHIP's subrogated claim.

The TEC defendants brought a motion to admit evidence from the criminal trial of Christopher Husbands (who committed a mass shooting at the Eaton Centre) into the upcoming civil trial, and to strike the plaintiffs' jury notices.

The defendants argued the evidence was necessary to establish Husbands' mindset and the spontaneity of his actions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that Husbands' specific mindset and reasons for the shooting were not relevant to the core issue of whether the defendants breached their duty of care regarding security under the Occupiers' Liability Act.

As the criminal evidence was not admitted, the court also declined to strike the jury notices, finding that a jury is capable of handling the anticipated expert evidence on security standards.

The plaintiff, a person under disability following a severe motor vehicle accident, sought court approval of a $487,500 tort settlement and associated legal fees under Rule 7.08.

The court approved the settlement amount, noting it was on the low end of reasonable but acceptable given the outstanding accident benefits claim.

However, the court rejected the proposed legal fees based on a 30% contingency agreement, finding them unreasonable given the lack of liability risk and early settlement.

The court reduced the fees to slightly above docketed time and ordered a portion of the funds to be structured with a case manager appointed to oversee the plaintiff's treatment plan.

The decision also provides a comprehensive checklist for counsel filing Rule 7.08 applications.

A case conference was held to schedule summary judgment motions brought by the Toronto Police Services Board and the Eaton Centre defendants.

The plaintiffs opposed the motions and sought a 14 to 17-day hearing to accommodate viva voce cross-examination of experts, arguing for a trial instead.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' proposed schedule as contrary to the purpose of summary judgment, which is meant to be a faster process.

The court scheduled a 6-day hearing for May 2021 and set a timetable for the exchange of materials and cross-examinations.

The defendants, the Toronto Police Services Board and the Eaton Centre, sought to schedule summary judgment motions to determine their liability in four related civil actions arising from a 2012 shooting at the Toronto Eaton Centre.

The plaintiffs opposed the motions, arguing they were entitled to a full jury trial on all issues.

The court held that there is no absolute right to a civil trial and that a summary judgment process is a legitimate alternative.

Finding that the liability issues would likely turn on legal concepts and expert evidence rather than disputed facts, the court directed that the summary judgment motions be scheduled.

A case management conference was held for five related actions arising from a 2016 motor vehicle accident.

The court noted partial compliance with a previous timetable and ordered further deadlines for answering undertakings, arranging defence medical examinations, and serving expert reports.

The court also directed that the matters be tried together and admonished counsel for sending representatives without knowledge or authority to the case conference.

This endorsement outlines a case management order for five consolidated actions arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The court, acting as case management judge, set a timetable for the remaining procedural steps, including the completion of examinations for discovery, answering undertakings, conducting defence medical examinations, and scheduling a mediation.

The order also directed counsel to circulate a draft consent order for trial of the actions together and to advise on the continuation of an action against a specific insurer.

This endorsement outlines a case management order for five consolidated actions arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The court, acting as case management judge, set a timetable for the remaining procedural steps, including the completion of examinations for discovery, answering undertakings, conducting defence medical examinations, and scheduling a mediation.

The order also directed counsel to circulate a draft consent order for trial of the actions together and to advise on the continuation of an action against a specific insurer.

This decision addresses the costs arising from a dismissed summary judgment motion brought by the defendant Technical Standards and Safety Authority (TSSA).

The plaintiffs, having successfully resisted the motion, sought partial indemnity costs of $41,033.67.

The TSSA proposed an award of $10,000, arguing that many claimed costs and disbursements related to the action generally rather than specifically to the motion.

The court, applying principles from the Courts of Justice Act and Rules of Civil Procedure, found the plaintiffs' requested hourly rates and disbursements, including expert reports and scheduling attendances, to be reasonable.

The court emphasized that it should not second-guess successful counsel's time on a motion that could have terminated the action.

Ultimately, the court ordered the TSSA to pay the plaintiffs $40,000 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The plaintiff underwent a nephrectomy performed by the defendant urologist after being diagnosed with suspected renal cell carcinoma.

Post-surgery pathology revealed the mass was a benign renal abscess.

The plaintiff sued for medical malpractice, alleging breach of the standard of care, lack of informed consent, and that the unnecessary removal of her kidney accelerated her end-stage renal failure.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding that the defendant met the standard of care as the clinical presentation and imaging strongly indicated malignancy and a biopsy was not the standard of care.

The court also found that informed consent was obtained and that the plaintiff failed to prove causation, as her pre-existing poorly controlled diabetes would have necessitated a kidney transplant regardless of the nephrectomy.