John Morris

The Hospital respondents sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis following the applicant's unsuccessful motion to stay a Health Professions Appeal and Review Board appeal pending a judicial review application.

The applicant, a self-represented litigant, argued that no costs should be awarded or that they should be stayed.

The court found that the Hospital respondents were entitled to costs but not on a substantial indemnity basis, as the applicant's conduct did not warrant such an elevated scale.

Costs were awarded to the Hospital respondents on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $9,780.

The applicant physician sought an interlocutory injunction to stay proceedings before the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) regarding the non-renewal of his hospital privileges, pending the disposition of his application for judicial review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, applying the RJR-MacDonald test.

The court found the applicant's claim for judicial review prior to exhausting the statutory HPARB process was weak, he failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured allowing the HPARB process to continue.

A motion for leave to file a 100-page factum was also dismissed.

The applicant, a surgeon, sought an interim remedy requiring the respondent hospitals to hold a hearing regarding his medical privileges during normal business hours, citing family status obligations including childcare and eldercare.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to meet the significant onus for an interim remedy, as the evidence did not establish that his family members would be without care if he attended an evening hearing, and a complete remedy could still be awarded if a Code violation were ultimately found.

Following settlement of a medical negligence action arising from a patient’s stroke while recovering from neurosurgery, the hospital pursued a cross‑claim for contribution under s. 2 of the Negligence Act against a nurse and her staffing agency employer.

The court found that the primary care nurse failed to properly assess neurological deterioration, failed to recognize hemiplegia, inadequately documented patient status, and failed to escalate concerns to obtain timely physician assessment.

The charge nurse also breached the standard of care by failing to properly assess the patient and failing to ensure that physicians were promptly paged and attended.

Applying the “but for” test with a robust and pragmatic approach to causation, the court inferred that earlier diagnosis and treatment of vasospasm would likely have reduced the extent of neurological injury.

Because the respective degrees of fault between the two nurses could not be determined, liability was apportioned equally under the Negligence Act.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming the suspension of his hospital privileges until he completed a remedial anaesthetist review program.

The appellant argued he was denied procedural fairness when confronted with multiple complaints without prior notice.

The Divisional Court found that while the initial process was flawed, the hospital cured the defect by agreeing to an independent expert review.

Applying a standard of reasonableness, the Court held the HPARB properly concluded there was a legitimate concern for patient safety warranting remedial action.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed an order of Justice Cosgrove dated July 8, 2003, which made findings of contempt.

The Court of Appeal agreed with counsel that it was an appropriate case to allow the appeal and set aside the findings of contempt in accordance with a filed draft order.

The requesting state appealed an order discharging fugitives at an extradition hearing on heroin conspiracy charges.

The Court of Appeal held that the extradition judge misapplied s. 18(1)(b) of the Extradition Act by focusing on proof of the foreign offences and territorial situs rather than asking whether the conduct underlying the foreign charges, wherever it occurred, would if committed in Canada establish a prima facie case of any Canadian extradition offence.

Applying the proper conduct-based double criminality analysis, the court found sufficient evidence of conspiracy to traffic in heroin and trafficking in heroin to justify committal.

The fugitives' separate application alleging a 25-month appellate delay under s. 7 of the Charter was dismissed because they took no steps to expedite the appeal and showed no real prejudice affecting fairness.