J.E. Ferguson

The plaintiff brought a medical negligence action against her family physician, alleging he failed to obtain informed consent regarding the increased relative risks of blood clots associated with the birth control pill Yaz.

The plaintiff suffered a stroke shortly after taking sample packs of Yaz provided by the physician.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the physician met the standard of care for disclosure and that the plaintiff would have taken the medication even if fully informed of the statistical risks.

Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiff failed to prove factual causation, as medical evidence indicated her stroke was cryptogenic and not caused by the medication.

The plaintiff suffered a catastrophic brain bleed and traumatic brain injury during an elective multi-step medical intervention for an asymptomatic brain AVM.

The plaintiff brought a medical negligence action against the treating physicians, alleging a failure to obtain informed consent.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the physicians failed to adequately disclose the cumulative risks of the multi-step procedure, the likelihood of requiring surgical resection, and the risks of conservative management.

The court concluded that a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position would not have proceeded with the intervention had they been properly informed, and held the physicians liable for the plaintiff's injuries.

The plaintiffs brought a medical negligence action against several physicians, nurses, and a hospital, alleging that their negligence during the plaintiff mother's labour and delivery caused the infant plaintiff to suffer a severe hypoxic-ischemic brain injury resulting in cerebral palsy.

The plaintiffs alleged that an artificial rupture of membranes was negligently performed when the fetal head was high, causing a cord prolapse.

The court found that the defendant physicians and nurses met the standard of care, with the exception of one resident physician's failure to document the events, which was not causative.

The court also concluded that the plaintiffs failed to prove factual causation, as the clinical evidence at birth was inconsistent with the infant being completely deprived of oxygen for the 18 minutes following the cord prolapse.

The action was dismissed.

The plaintiffs in a medical malpractice action brought a motion to exclude the defendants' expert witness, a vascular neurosurgeon and interventional neuroradiologist, on the basis of bias.

The court conducted a voir dire and reviewed the expert's reports, past testimony, and relationship with the defendant physicians.

The court found that the expert was not impartial, acted as an advocate, failed to disclose his professional and personal relationship with one of the defendants, and assumed the defendants' evidence was credible while ignoring the plaintiffs' evidence.

The court concluded that the expert was unable and unwilling to comply with his duty to the court and excluded his evidence in its entirety.

The plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action against her rheumatologist, alleging he breached the standard of care by misdiagnosing her with gout, failing to perform a joint aspiration, and prescribing Allopurinol without informed consent, which led to her developing Stevens-Johnson Syndrome.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the defendant met the standard of care of a reasonable community rheumatologist in diagnosing gout clinically and prescribing Allopurinol.

The court also found that informed consent was obtained and that the plaintiff failed to prove causation, as expert evidence established she had a genetic predisposition making the adverse reaction inevitable regardless of the starting dose.

During a medical malpractice trial, the defendants moved to strike the jury following the plaintiff's closing address.

The court found that plaintiff's counsel crossed the line many times, making numerous misstatements that rendered correction by an appropriate charge impossible.

Concluding that the plaintiff's closing address undermined the fairness of the trial process, the court discharged the jury and determined it would decide the issues of liability and damages itself.

Following a trial where the plaintiff employer was awarded $537,885 in compensatory damages for an employee's fraudulent kickback scheme, the plaintiff sought supplementary orders for a constructive trust over the employee's property and punitive damages.

The court granted a constructive trust, finding a direct link between the stolen funds and the property, but stayed the order for 30 days to allow the defendant to pay the judgment.

The court also awarded $200,000 in punitive damages, emphasizing the need for deterrence and denunciation of employee theft.

The defendants, NSR Toronto and Dapeng Wang, brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' claims against them for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, oppression, and conspiracy.

The court found that neither moving defendant was a party to the underlying contract, precluding the breach of contract and derivative claims.

The court also held that the oppression remedy under the OBCA did not apply to a BC corporation, and the conspiracy claims lacked the requisite clarity and precision.

The motion was granted, and the claims against the moving defendants were struck without leave to amend.

The defendant brought a motion for a declaration that the plaintiff did not sustain a permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function following a motor vehicle accident.

The court applied the three-part test from Meyer v. Bright and considered the plaintiff's evidence, including testimony from his doctor and family members.

The court found that the plaintiff's impairments were permanent, serious, and substantially interfered with his activities of daily living.

The defendant's motion was dismissed, as the plaintiff met his onus of establishing that his impairments met the statutory threshold.

The defendant employer brought a Rule 21 motion to dismiss the plaintiff's constructive dismissal action.

The plaintiff had been temporarily laid off due to the COVID-19 pandemic and government-mandated closures.

The court held that under the Employment Standards Act and O. Reg. 228/20, the temporary layoff was deemed an Infectious Disease Emergency Leave (IDEL).

The court explicitly declined to follow a recent decision (Coutinho) and concluded that the IDEL regulation displaced the common law doctrine of constructive dismissal for COVID-19 related layoffs.

The plaintiff's action was dismissed.

The defendant was found in civil contempt for failing to abide by court orders and subsequently destroying devices subject to a court-ordered forensic inspection.

The plaintiffs sought a stay of a related action, but the court declined to order a stay at this stage.

Applying the factors for civil contempt sentencing, the court determined that a period of incarceration was appropriate but deferred the sentence due to Covid-19 concerns, allowing the defendant 30 days to provide submissions.

The applicant tenant brought an application for a declaration that her commercial lease was valid and binding, and for an injunction restraining the respondent landlord from interfering with her business.

The landlord had engaged in a campaign of harassment, including destroying common areas and removing the air conditioning unit, in an attempt to force the tenant to vacate so he could carry out construction.

The court found the landlord's allegations of breach to be spurious, dismissed his counter-application for fundamental breach, and granted the tenant's application, ordering specific performance of the lease and requiring the landlord to complete outstanding repairs.

The defendant was previously found in contempt of court for failing to comply with orders requiring the return of confidential union information and the forensic inspection of his electronic devices.

Instead of purging his contempt, the defendant deliberately destroyed the devices.

The plaintiffs sought to stay the defendant's separate action in Brampton as a penalty.

The court declined to stay the action at this time and deferred sentencing to consider house arrest, requiring the defendant to provide details of his living situation.

Costs submissions were also ordered.

The plaintiff property developer brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to compel the defendant purchasers to vacate a condominium townhouse and prevent their re-entry.

The defendants had taken interim occupancy but failed to close the transaction, refused to sign extension agreements, made unauthorized alterations to the unit, and engaged in abusive and harassing behaviour toward the plaintiff's staff.

The court granted the mandatory injunction, finding the defendants were trespassers, the plaintiff established a strong prima facie case, and the plaintiff was suffering irreparable harm to its property rights and reputation.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 7.06(2) to substitute the plaintiff's litigation guardian, alleging the plaintiff's mother was not acting in her best interests.

The underlying action involved allegations that the defendants manipulated the mentally ill plaintiff into selling her property significantly below market value.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence to support the defendants' claims and characterizing the motion as an improper tactical manoeuvre to disrupt the litigation.

The plaintiff, a former member of a white supremacist group, sued the defendants, also former members or individuals involved in anti-hate work, alleging they appropriated her life story and committed various torts including injurious falsehood, civil conspiracy, and negligence.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claims, and one defendant counterclaimed for defamation, invasion of privacy, and appropriation of personality.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims as frivolous and vexatious, finding no evidence to support any of the alleged torts.

The court granted the defendant's counterclaim, awarding $100,000 in general damages, $50,000 in aggravated damages, and $50,000 in punitive damages, along with a permanent injunction.

The defendants, former legal counsel for the plaintiff, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's professional negligence action.

The plaintiff alleged the defendants breached the standard of care during an underlying personal injury trial by failing to advise him about an updated loss of income report and abandoning his future loss of income claim without instructions.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial.

The evidence demonstrated the plaintiff was aware of the supplementary report, understood the significant risks of proceeding to trial, and insisted on proceeding despite his lawyers' advice to settle or dismiss the action without costs.

The applicant tenant brought an application for the interpretation of a commercial lease to determine responsibility for property taxes, utility arrears, renovation expenses, and management fees.

The court found that the lease unambiguously made the landlord responsible for property taxes.

The court also held the landlord responsible for utility arrears incurred prior to the lease that were necessary to maintain service.

However, the tenant was found responsible for renovation costs, as well as the landlord's reasonable legal and management fees.

The applicant, a trustee and settlor of a family trust, sought to recover over $1 million from the trust for the 1993 transfer of a farm property, construction costs, and maintenance expenses.

The respondent beneficiaries opposed the claims and sought the removal of the trustees.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the applicant's financial claims, finding them to be either undocumented gifts or barred by the expired limitation periods.

The court ordered two beneficiaries to pay arrears for rent and utilities, and ordered one to vacate the property due to serious breaches of her tenancy agreement.

Finally, the court removed all three trustees for failing to properly administer the trust and protect the beneficiaries' interests, ordering their replacement by a professional third-party trustee.

The plaintiff underwent bariatric surgery performed by the defendant.

The defendant took down a prior fundoplication without the plaintiff's informed consent, causing severe acid reflux that ultimately required the removal of the plaintiff's stomach.

The court found the defendant breached the standard of care by performing a contraindicated surgery without adequate experience and without obtaining informed consent.

The limitation period defence failed as the plaintiff only discovered the cause of her injuries later.

The court awarded general damages and Family Law Act damages to the plaintiffs.