Joseph James Colangelo

The appellants, gynecologic oncologists, appealed a Superior Court decision that dismissed their application seeking continued funding from the Academic Medical Organization of Southwestern Ontario (AMOSO).

AMOSO, an unincorporated not-for-profit, had decided to discontinue their funding.

The appellants argued breach of contract and sought a contractual remedy or alternative dispute resolution, asserting they were third-party beneficiaries of a funding agreement.

The application judge dismissed their claim, finding no contractual right and that AMOSO's decision-making process was fair.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, confirming that the appellants were not parties to the agreement, nor were they intended third-party beneficiaries, and that the court's review of AMOSO's discretionary decision was limited to procedural fairness, which AMOSO had met.

During a medical malpractice trial, the defendant physician moved for production of three expert reports obtained by the plaintiff's former solicitors in a related solicitor's negligence action.

The plaintiff opposed, asserting solicitor-client or litigation privilege.

The court determined the reports were subject to litigation privilege, not solicitor-client privilege, and that the plaintiff had implicitly waived this privilege by commencing the solicitor's negligence action and failing to challenge the former solicitor's defence pleading, which referenced these reports as central to denying negligence.

The motion for production was granted.

The Plaintiffs in a medical negligence action brought a motion seeking leave to admit an expert's affidavit and discovery transcripts of two family members (one deceased, one unwell) into evidence at trial.

The court dismissed the request to admit the expert's affidavit, finding it did not comply with Rule 53 requirements for expert reports and would unfairly deprive the defence of cross-examination.

However, the court granted leave to admit the discovery transcripts of the family members under Rule 31.11(6), subject to the Plaintiffs immediately quantifying their Family Law Act claims and providing the family doctor's notes for the relevant period to the defence, to ensure fairness given the inability of the family members to testify.

A reporter for the Toronto Star requested access to the names of the top 100 physician billers to the Ontario Health Insurance Program for fiscal years 2008 to 2012, along with their medical specialties and billing amounts.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner's adjudicator ordered disclosure, finding that physicians' names in this context were not personal information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court upheld this decision.

The Ontario Medical Association and two groups of physicians appealed, arguing that physicians' names constitute personal information and are therefore exempt from disclosure.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the adjudicator's decision was reasonable and that the billing information, representing gross professional revenue before business expenses, did not reveal something of a personal nature about the physicians.

In a medical malpractice claim where liability was admitted by Dr. Singh, the defendant brought a motion for updated documentary disclosure from the plaintiffs regarding damages.

The plaintiffs resisted, arguing the demands were excessive and disproportionate.

The court applied the principles of relevance and proportionality under the Rules of Civil Procedure, granting some production requests (e.g., updated OHIP summaries, tax returns, family doctor records, primary treating specialists) while denying others deemed unnecessary or marginally relevant (e.g., welfare records, non-primary psychological treatment records, sweeping hospital records, private activity records).

The court emphasized the need for cooperation, communication, and common sense in litigation, shifting the cost of obtaining ordered records to the defendant.

In a medical malpractice action concerning a child with significant disabilities, the plaintiffs sought partial summary judgment for future care costs, housing costs, and the OHIP subrogated claim, relying on the defendants' expert evidence.

Concurrently, the defendant Dr. Singh sought orders for further discovery, a further defence medical assessment, and production of the plaintiffs' expert's file.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, reasoning that it would not genuinely streamline the upcoming trial as the plaintiffs intended to present their own expert evidence on damages, thus requiring the defence experts to still be called.

The court granted the defendant Dr. Singh leave for further limited discovery and a further defence medical assessment due to changed circumstances and the need for trial fairness.

Additionally, the plaintiffs' expert was ordered to provide an affidavit detailing all relied-upon materials.

No costs were awarded for any of the motions.