Jennifer Guy

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to amend their statement of claim to add CML Healthcare Inc. as a defendant on the basis of misnomer in a medical malpractice action involving a delayed diagnosis of a brain tumour.

The plaintiffs originally named Oxford Medical Imaging as the owner of the imaging facility, but later discovered CML owned it at the relevant time.

The court found that the 'litigation finger' was clearly pointing at CML and that there was no non-compensable prejudice.

The motion was granted, and the plaintiffs were awarded costs of $3,000.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing her negligence action arising from an injury sustained while practicing long-jump techniques at a secondary school.

The trial judge found that the school board and its employees did not breach their duty of care and met the standard of a prudent parent.

The appellant raised eleven grounds of appeal challenging the trial judge's credibility assessments, factual findings, and treatment of expert evidence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judgment, finding no palpable and overriding error and affirming the trial judge's comprehensive reasons and conclusions.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The plaintiff, a high school student, sued her coach, principal, and school board for negligence after sustaining a knee injury during track and field practice.

The court found that the defendants met the standard of care of a careful and prudent parent, and that the plaintiff's current physical condition and occupational aspirations were not causally related to the injury.

The plaintiff's claim was dismissed.

The applicant's motion for leave to appeal a preliminary issue regarding security for costs under the Libel and Slander Act was dismissed.

The respondent sought costs of $6,270.57 on a partial indemnity basis, while the applicant argued for $1,500 to $2,000.

Having regard to the narrow issue and the factors in Rule 57.01(1), the court fixed costs payable to the respondent at $3,000 all-inclusive.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing a defamation claim against police and media respondents.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the words in question could not be read as defamatory and reported only true facts.

The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal the costs order below was refused.

Costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondents.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal a motions judge's decision that allowed the defendants to seek security for costs under s. 12(1) of the Libel and Slander Act, despite the plaintiff being a resident of Ontario.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions on the issue and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's interpretation that the statute permits security for costs against resident plaintiffs.