Ian MacLeod

The applicant sought an order requiring the respondents to de-register shares held in his RRSP and transfer them in kind without withholding tax.

The respondents refused to process the withdrawal without first determining the fair market value of the privately held shares in order to calculate withholding tax under the Income Tax Act and Income Tax Regulations.

The court held that the regulatory provisions relied upon by the respondents concerning withholding tax on remuneration between employers and employees did not apply to withdrawals from a privately administered RRSP where no employment relationship existed.

As no prescribed rule requiring withholding tax in the circumstances was identified, the respondents had no legal basis to refuse the withdrawal or insist on a valuation letter.

The court ordered that the shares be de‑registered without deduction for withholding tax.

The moving physician defendants brought a motion to strike portions of a statement of claim and dismiss the action against them in a medical negligence action arising from a brain biopsy procedure.

They argued that the pleading contained generalized allegations of negligence without material facts identifying each defendant’s role or specific acts or omissions.

Applying the “plain and obvious” test for striking pleadings, the court found the claim as drafted disclosed no reasonable cause of action against the moving defendants.

However, the deficiencies were considered curable through amendment and the defendants failed to establish prejudice that would justify denying leave to amend.

The impugned paragraphs were struck but the plaintiff was granted leave to amend the statement of claim within 30 days.

The plaintiff underwent an ambulatory phlebectomy for a varicose vein near her ankle, during which the defendant physician inadvertently removed a 20.5 cm segment of her sural nerve, causing permanent damage.

The plaintiff sued for medical malpractice, alleging negligence in both the recommendation of the procedure and its execution.

The court found that while recommending the procedure met the standard of care, the execution of the procedure was negligent based on circumstantial evidence, including the amount of force required to avulse the nerve and the physician's failure to recognize he had hooked the nerve.

The plaintiff was awarded agreed-upon damages of $128,975.00.

The defendant brought a motion to stay the Ontario action on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction and that Quebec was the more appropriate forum.

The court applied the presumptive connecting factors from Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda and concluded that the defendant carried on business in Ontario through its involvement in developing and commercializing a titanium dioxide extraction process and its ownership interest in the patent-holding company.

The court therefore found a real and substantial connection sufficient to ground jurisdiction.

On the forum non conveniens analysis, although certain factors slightly favoured Quebec, most were neutral and the defendant failed to demonstrate that Quebec was clearly the more appropriate forum.

The plaintiff’s chosen forum was not displaced and the stay was refused.