Jessica Mor

The plaintiffs, Bernard Finnigan and Ramon Suarez, brought a medical malpractice action against Dr. Edward Tat-Yee Lee, alleging failure to timely diagnose lymphoma and properly manage Mr. Finnigan's pain between November 2016 and January 2017.

The court found that Dr. Lee met the standard of care in his diagnosis, treatment, and pain management.

The decision emphasized that the doctor's clinical judgment was appropriately applied, that the "worst first" diagnostic principle is not the law in Ontario, and that the plaintiff's inconsistent reporting of symptoms contributed to the situation.

The action was dismissed.

The plaintiffs invested in a land development project in Brampton promoted by the defendants.

The defendants promised to develop the property into a subdivision and deliver serviced lots to the investors.

However, the defendants never developed the property, secretly used project funds to pay for their personal expenses, and ultimately sold the undeveloped land to a third-party developer for over $15.3 million.

The plaintiffs sued for breach of contract, fraud, conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the actions, finding that the defendants had engaged in a deliberate pattern of deceptive and self-serving misconduct.

The court imposed a constructive trust and awarded the plaintiffs a pro-rata share of the sale proceeds based on their capital contributions, totaling over $10.6 million, plus $150,000 in punitive damages.

The complainant brought a certiorari application to quash an order granted by a lower court judge that permitted the accused to enter her home to retrieve personal belongings and take photographs.

The order was granted on consent of the Crown, but without notice to the complainant.

The Superior Court found that the complainant had standing to bring the application as a non-party directly impacted by the order.

The court held that the lower court judge made a jurisdictional error, as there was no statutory or common law authority to grant such an order without notice to the third party whose privacy interests were affected.

The order was quashed.

This decision addresses costs following a confirmation hearing for a motion to change spousal and child support.

The applicant's motion was largely dismissed due to deficient and inconsistent evidence, leading to the respondent being deemed the successful party.

The court found the applicant's conduct unreasonable, particularly regarding disclosure and lack of a settlement offer, but not amounting to bad faith.

The respondent's "proposal to resolve" was not considered a formal offer to settle under the Family Law Rules.

Considering the respondent's meticulous preparation and the applicant's unreasonable behaviour, the court awarded the respondent $7,000 in costs, enforceable as support.

The applicant sought confirmation of an Alberta provisional order to reduce child and spousal support.

The Ontario court found a material change in circumstances for 2010-2013 due to the applicant's alcohol abuse and homelessness, varying support to zero for those years and reducing it for 2013.

However, for subsequent years, the court found the applicant's evidence regarding his income, lifestyle, and relationship with his new partner to be inconsistent, unreliable, and lacking credibility, refusing to confirm the provisional order's ongoing reductions.

The original Ontario order for ongoing support was largely reinstated from 2014 onwards, with child support adjusted for one child.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment on three grounds: the trial judge's credibility assessments, alleged collusion by one respondent with witnesses, and prejudice from a five-month trial adjournment.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's credibility findings were adequately explained within the context of the entire judgment and were warranted on the evidence.

The court found no evidentiary support for the collusion allegation, noting that the witnesses' trial testimony was inconsistent with the "will-say" statements allegedly prepared by the respondent, making collusion implausible.

The court rejected the adjournment argument, holding that absent demonstrated actual prejudice or a request for an earlier date at trial, a five-month adjournment does not presumptively require a new trial.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.