Jacinthe Isabelle Helene Boudreau

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for certification in a systemic negligence class action against a psychiatric hospital and the Province of Ontario, the successful defendants sought costs.

Waypoint claimed approximately $1.3 million and Ontario claimed approximately $815,000.

The court found the claimed amounts to be fair and reasonable given the complexity of the case and the resources expended by the plaintiffs.

Applying section 31 of the Class Proceedings Act, the court applied an approximate 10% discount due to the public interest nature of the litigation, awarding Waypoint $1,170,000 and Ontario $735,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against Ontario, Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, and individual hospital administrators, alleging systemic negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and Charter violations related to the use of seclusion and restraints at a maximum-security psychiatric hospital.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that while some patients may have individual claims for culpable seclusion, there was no basis in fact for systemic wrongdoing.

The court concluded that the claims lacked commonality, as the use of restraints required highly individualized clinical assessments, and that a joinder action, rather than a class proceeding, was the preferable procedure.

The Member faced allegations of professional misconduct related to providing inappropriate incentives (shoe credits) to patients for purchasing orthotics, submitting misleading insurance claims, and failing to maintain adequate patient records.

The Member admitted to the allegations and agreed to a joint submission on penalty.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission, finding the Member engaged in professional misconduct.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, an 8-month suspension (with 2 months remitted upon completing ethics and records courses), practice restrictions, supervision, and $9,000 in costs.

The Member faced allegations of professional misconduct related to providing inappropriate incentives (shoe credits) to patients for purchasing orthotics, submitting misleading insurance claims, and failing to maintain adequate patient records.

The Member admitted to the allegations and agreed to a joint submission on penalty.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission, finding the Member engaged in professional misconduct.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, an 8-month suspension (with 2 months remitted upon completing ethics and records courses), practice restrictions, supervision, and $9,000 in costs.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision dismissing her medical malpractice, defamation, and negligence claims against multiple defendants including paramedic services, nine physicians, a hospital, and a medical clinic.

The motion judge had granted summary judgment on all claims.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissals but amended the judgment regarding Royal Victoria Regional Health Centre to clarify that only claims relating to Triage Nurse J. Doe's actions on March 10 and 11, 2012 were dismissed, not all claims against the hospital.

The appellant's appeal was otherwise dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

Following a successful summary judgment motion dismissing the action against a hospital in a medical malpractice proceeding, the court addressed costs.

The hospital sought recovery of its costs for both the summary judgment motion and the broader action.

The court considered whether a Bullock or Sanderson order was appropriate and the impact of a co-defendant physician’s refusal to admit a key factual issue relating to nursing care.

Exercising discretion under Rule 57.01(1)(g) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court held that the physician’s refusal to admit the fact necessitated the motion and justified shifting the hospital’s costs to him.

The hospital’s costs were fixed for the motion, the action, and the costs hearing.

The moving party hospital sought summary judgment dismissing a medical negligence action arising from a post-surgical brain infection allegedly caused by a nurse’s failure to report purulent drainage from a patient’s incision prior to discharge.

The plaintiffs alleged the nurse negligently allowed discharge without informing the treating physician or properly documenting the observation.

The court held that the motion record permitted a full appreciation of the issues and that the circumstantial and usual-practice evidence supported the inference that the nurse had reported the drainage to the physician and complied with the applicable standard of care.

The plaintiffs failed to produce evidence contradicting the nurse’s usual practice or establishing causation between any alleged failure and the injury.

Summary judgment was therefore granted dismissing the claims and cross‑claims against the hospital.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment based on place of origin, disability, family status, age, and reprisal against the employer and the union.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal found that the applicant provided no evidence linking the alleged denial of vacation or the union's handling of the grievance to a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The Tribunal also found no evidence of reprisal regarding delays in processing the claimant's pension, which were attributed to clerical errors.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

During a case conference in a medical negligence action, the court addressed outstanding procedural steps required for trial preparation.

The plaintiffs were ordered to complete all outstanding undertakings by a specified deadline and to deliver their expert reports shortly thereafter.

The court also scheduled a pretrial conference date.

The endorsement reflects routine case management directions to advance the litigation toward trial.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, place of origin, and other grounds, as well as reprisal by both the employer and the union.

The respondents sought early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matters were dealt with by the Employment Insurance Board of Referees (EIBR) and the union grievance process.

The Tribunal found that the EIBR had appropriately dealt with the allegations that the termination was discriminatory, as it found the applicant lacked just cause to decline reinstatement and was not subjected to human rights violations.

However, the EIBR did not deal with allegations regarding vacation scheduling.

The Tribunal also found that the withdrawn union grievance was not a proceeding under section 45.1.

The Tribunal dismissed the termination allegations against the employer but allowed the vacation scheduling and union allegations to continue, and granted the applicant's request to amend the application to add reprisal allegations.

Following the outcome of the appeals, the court awarded costs to the respondent in the amount of $43,000, inclusive of GST and disbursements.

The appellant hospital appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent doctor $3,000,000 in damages for the bad faith revocation of his hospital privileges.

The doctor cross-appealed the damage assessment, arguing it should have been higher.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal.

The Court found ample evidence to support the trial judge's finding that the hospital acted in bad faith and for an oblique motive when it summarily revoked the doctor's privileges.

On damages, the Court held that while the doctor failed to produce readily available evidence of his income loss, the trial judge was entitled to assess damages based on the proven magnitude of the loss, and was justified in reducing the claim by approximately half.