John McIntyre

The appellant appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision confirming her involuntary patient status.

However, she was discharged shortly after the board's decision, rendering the appeal moot.

The appellant and amicus curiae argued the court should hear the appeal to address procedural fairness and the sufficiency of evidence, noting the potential negative impacts of the underlying medical diagnosis.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal, finding that the issues were highly factual, did not require appellate guidance, and that hearing the appeal would not alter the underlying medical diagnosis.

The defendants brought motions to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim under rules 21.01 and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs, a home builder and its principal, alleged various torts and statutory breaches against Tarion Warranty Corporation, several municipalities, CTV News, and a public health authority, claiming hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.

The court found the 40-page statement of claim to be unwieldy, repetitive, and deficient in pleading the necessary material facts for the alleged causes of action.

The court struck the statement of claim in its entirety, dismissing claims based on criminal statutes, the Competition Act, the Security of Information Act, intentional interference with economic relations, discrimination, and harassment without leave to amend.

However, the court granted the plaintiffs leave to move for an order permitting them to deliver a fresh statement of claim restricted to specific causes of action, including injurious falsehood, inducing breach of contract, civil conspiracy, and negligence, provided they can properly plead the required material facts.

The defendants' motion for summary judgment to dismiss a medical malpractice action based on a limitation period was previously dismissed.

The plaintiffs sought costs of the motion in the amount of $20,691.22, while the defendants argued costs should be reserved to the trial judge or fixed at $15,000 in the cause.

The court fixed the plaintiffs' costs at $18,700, inclusive of fees, HST, and disbursements.

Applying Rule 57.03(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court ordered the costs to be payable by the defendants within 30 days, rejecting the defendants' request to defer the costs to the trial judge.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' medical malpractice action as statute-barred.

The plaintiff, a diabetic, received foot care from the defendant chiropodist and later required a leg amputation due to Charcot foot.

The defendants argued the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of the claim by the date of amputation.

The plaintiff argued the claim was not discovered until receiving a medical expert report linking the amputation to the defendant's substandard care.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding when the plaintiff knew or ought to have known the facts necessary to discover the negligence claim.