Joseph John Martin Masterson

The defendant in a medical malpractice trial brought a motion to reopen the evidentiary record after the close of evidence but before judgment, seeking to introduce fresh evidence regarding recent amendments to the Assistive Devices Program (ADP).

The defendant argued the new ADP policies would make the plaintiff's orthotic device eligible for funding, thereby reducing the future care costs claim.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff's device remained ineligible under the revised ADP criteria because it was not manufactured in-house from raw materials.

The court further held that even if the evidence could change the result, reopening the trial after ten years of litigation would not be in the interests of justice due to significant delay, costs, and procedural complexity.

In a medical malpractice action arising from catastrophic injuries inflicted on a newborn by his biological mother, the plaintiffs alleged that a family physician and a pediatrician negligently failed to report child protection concerns under s. 72 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The court found that the family physician conducted adequate mental health and coping assessments, and that neither physician had reasonable grounds to suspect the infant was a child in need of protection.

Although the family physician breached the standard of care by not providing the pediatrician with a fuller mental health history, that breach had no causal consequence.

The court further held that, even if a report had been made, the Children's Aid Society would likely have treated the matter as low risk and would not have intervened in time to prevent the assault.

The action was dismissed, with damages nonetheless fixed by agreement at $13,250,000 under Rule 7.08.

The plaintiff, Blue Water Golf Course Inc., sued the defendants for the outstanding balance of a park model home purchase.

The defendants counterclaimed for damages, alleging breach of contract due to a defective furnace and resulting smoke and odour issues.

The court found that the defendants failed to establish a breach of contract on the part of the plaintiff or prove compensable damages.

Expert reports indicated no significant contamination or need for replacement of the furnace or ductwork, and many claimed damages were either reimbursed by their insurer or unrelated to the alleged defect.

The court granted judgment to the plaintiff for the full outstanding amount and dismissed the defendants' counterclaim.

Following a jury verdict in favour of the plaintiffs in a personal injury action, the parties sought rulings on two issues.

First, the court held that under s. 278(2) of the Insurance Act, the insurer must share any subrogated recovery with the plaintiffs on a pro rata basis until the plaintiffs are fully indemnified under their OPCF 44R endorsement.

Second, the court held that a third party who defended the main action is not jointly and severally liable to the plaintiffs under s. 1 of the Negligence Act, but rather is severally liable to the defendant who commenced the third party claim.

Following a jury verdict awarding the plaintiffs $3.565 million for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident caused by an impaired driver, the court determined several post-trial legal issues.

The court denied the third-party bartender's request to amend his pleadings to add a limitation defence due to prejudice.

The court found the bartender was an independent contractor or volunteer, meaning the host was not vicariously liable for his negligence, but the host could seek contribution and indemnity under the Negligence Act.

The court also ruled that the plaintiffs could access their OPCF 44R underinsured motorist coverage without having sued the bartender, as his insurance was not 'available' to them within the meaning of the endorsement.

Finally, the court ordered the assignment of future statutory accident benefits to prevent double recovery.

The court ruled on the admissibility of expert toxicological opinion evidence regarding blood alcohol concentration (BAC) levels and signs of intoxication during a trial.

The expert was deemed qualified to testify on BAC levels and their physiological effects based on assumptions.

However, the court excluded the expert's opinion on whether an individual exhibited signs of intoxication or others' ability to detect impairment, holding that these are matters of common knowledge for a jury and do not require expert testimony.

The court also cautioned against experts developing hypotheses and sifting through evidence to support them.

The insured appealed a decision of the motion judge that there was no genuine issue for trial.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the case raised issues relating to the interpretation of s. 9.1 of the Automobile Insurance Regulations and issues of credibility concerning the effectiveness of service and the existence and timing of a settlement.

Given the credibility issues, the motion judge did not have a proper record to interpret s. 9.1 and erred in failing to find a genuine issue for trial.

The applicant, a self-employed farmer, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits from the insurer.

The insurer terminated benefits after 156 weeks, arguing the applicant did not meet the stricter test of disability under section 12(5)(b) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The arbitrator found the applicant was continuously prevented from engaging in suitable employment and remained entitled to benefits.

The arbitrator also accepted the applicant's accountant's calculation of gross weekly income, which treated the value of exchanged family labour as a ceasing business expense.

Finally, the arbitrator held that the insurer was not entitled to repayment of an initial overpayment, as the error resulted from the insurer's interpretation of the legislation rather than any material act or omission by the applicant.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits for 156 weeks before returning to work.

She subsequently missed two periods of work and claimed entitlement to weekly income benefits for those periods under section 12(5)(b) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The arbitrator found that the applicant failed to meet the burden of proving that her injuries continuously prevented her from engaging in any occupation or employment for which she was reasonably suited by education, training, or experience.

The claim for benefits was dismissed, but the applicant was awarded her arbitration expenses.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits until the insurer terminated them based on surveillance evidence.

At mediation, the parties signed an agreement to be bound by the opinion of an orthopaedic specialist regarding the applicant's ability to work.

The specialist opined that the applicant was substantially unable to perform his essential tasks.

The arbitrator held that the mediation agreement was binding and ordered the insurer to pay weekly benefits in accordance with the specialist's opinion until the date the specialist no longer found the applicant disabled.

The claim for a special award was dismissed.