P.B. Hambly

The plaintiff underwent emergency surgery performed by the defendant thoracic surgeon to repair a paraesophageal hiatus hernia.

During the operation, a bougie became stuck in the plaintiff's esophagus, and its removal caused a de-gloving injury to the esophagus.

Several weeks later, the plaintiff suffered a severe stroke.

The plaintiffs sued the surgeon for medical malpractice, alleging negligence in the performance of the surgery and that the resulting esophageal injury caused the stroke.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the surgeon met the standard of care and that the stroke was cardioembolic, caused by atrial fibrillation, and unrelated to the esophageal injury.

The Children's Aid Society brought a status review application regarding a 7-year-old child who had been residing with her paternal grandmother and step-grandfather (the kin) for over five years.

The mother sought unsupervised access or custody, but a parenting capacity assessment and past access attempts indicated unsupervised access was detrimental to the child.

The court found that the child was no longer in need of protection while in the care of the kin.

The court ordered that the child be placed in the legal custody of the kin under the Children's Law Reform Act, with the mother granted supervised access and telephone contact at the discretion of the kin.

The plaintiff brought a motion to find the defendant, a former employee, in contempt of an interlocutory injunction prohibiting him from soliciting clients or disclosing confidential information.

The plaintiff relied on affidavits containing hearsay evidence regarding the defendant's alleged solicitation attempts.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that under Rule 60.11(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, hearsay evidence is inadmissible on a contentious point in a contempt motion.

The plaintiff failed to meet the strict burden of proving contempt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The parties separated in 2001 and had two children who primarily resided with the applicant father until 2014, when they moved in with the respondent mother.

Both parties brought applications to vary a 2005 order.

The respondent sought sole custody and child support, while the applicant sought to maintain joint custody and requested retroactive support offsets.

The court ordered that joint custody continue, with primary residence to the respondent.

The court imputed an income of $45,000 to the applicant and ordered him to pay ongoing child support and arrears commencing June 1, 2015.

The accused brought an application for a review of a bail hearing following a detention order on consent.

He was charged with break and enter, robbery, and pointing a firearm arising from a home invasion.

The court treated the application as a hearing de novo.

The court found the accused failed to meet his onus under the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds of s. 515(10) of the Criminal Code, noting his extensive criminal record, flight risk, and the gravity of the offence.

The proposed surety was also deemed unsuitable.

The application for release was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the applicants' applications regarding holdback funds from a commercial transaction, the respondent sought costs.

The respondent had made an offer to settle that was better than the result obtained by the applicants.

The applicants objected to the costs claimed, arguing the matter was over-lawyered and the costs were disproportionate.

The court agreed there was some over-lawyering but found the applicants' unproven allegations of dishonesty against the respondent justified an elevated costs award.

The court awarded the respondent partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, fixed at $73,036 inclusive of disbursements.

The offender was convicted of manslaughter following the stabbing death of his friend during a physical altercation over a television.

The court found that the offender did not intend to cause death but used excessive force in self-defence by arming himself with a knife.

After weighing aggravating factors, including the use of a weapon and fleeing the scene, against mitigating factors such as his youth, employment history, and strict bail conditions, the court imposed a sentence of 5 years.

With credit for pre-sentence custody and bail conditions, the net sentence was 3 years and 10 months.

Following a judgment in favour of the landlord regarding the termination of a commercial lease upon a request to assign, the landlord sought costs of $15,098.45 on a substantial indemnity basis or $9,928.16 on a partial indemnity basis.

The tenant argued that the case involved a novel issue with no prior Ontario case law and suggested costs be limited to $5,000.

The court found that while the landlord was successful and entitled to costs, the tenant had a good argument on a novel issue.

The court fixed costs at $5,000, noting the tenant's failure to file its own bill of costs diminished its argument on reasonable expectations.

The accused was charged with firearms and drug offences after police responded to a report of a man pointing a handgun.

An officer spotted the accused, who matched the description, running near the scene.

After a foot pursuit and struggle, the accused was arrested and searched, revealing cocaine, a digital scale, and cash.

The accused applied to exclude the evidence and his subsequent statements under s. 24(2) of the Charter, alleging breaches of his s. 8 and s. 9 rights.

The court dismissed the application, finding the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest and search the accused incident to arrest.

Alternatively, the court held the evidence would be admissible under the Grant framework even if a breach had occurred.

During a trial regarding an estate dispute and a dependant's relief application, it was revealed that the parties had previously attended mediation and reached a settlement.

The applicant's lawyer subsequently attempted to resile from the agreement.

The court held a hearing to determine if a binding settlement had been reached.

The court found that the applicant's lawyer had ostensible authority to bind his client and had agreed to the settlement terms.

The court enforced the settlement under Rule 49.09, finding it fair and reasonable, and declined to award costs against the applicant's lawyer personally.

The accused, a police officer, was charged with breach of trust for allegedly leaking confidential police intelligence bulletins to the Hells Angels.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including the accused's fingerprints on documents seized from the gang, phone records showing contact with a gang associate, and the accused's fabricated statements to investigators.

The court applied the W.(D.) test for credibility and found the accused's explanations lacked an air of reality.

The court concluded that the cumulative circumstantial evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused leaked the documents.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused brought an application to exclude evidence of drugs found during a vehicle search, arguing his arrest was arbitrary and the search violated his s. 8 Charter rights.

The police had intercepted communications and conducted surveillance indicating the accused was transporting drugs.

The court found the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused based on this evidence.

The subsequent search of the vehicle was a valid search incident to arrest, and as a passenger, the accused had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The plaintiff, a 70-year-old machine operator with 20 years of service, was dismissed without cause and brought a motion for summary judgment for wrongful dismissal damages.

The defendant employer brought a cross-motion to stay the summary judgment motion until it could conduct an examination for discovery.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion, finding it had failed to put its best foot forward or present any contradictory evidence.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, fixing the reasonable notice period at 22 months and awarding $69,139.03 in damages.

The plaintiff, a 70-year-old machine operator with 20 years of service, was dismissed without cause.

He brought a motion for summary judgment for wrongful dismissal damages.

The defendant employer brought a motion to stay the summary judgment motion until it could conduct an examination for discovery.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion, finding that the issues could be fairly resolved on the documentary record without discovery.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, awarding a 22-month notice period and damages totaling $69,139.03.

The applicant father sought joint custody and a name change for the parties' six-year-old daughter.

The respondent mother sought sole custody.

The parties were never married and separated before the child's birth.

The court found a history of poor communication, high conflict, and instability on the part of the father.

Applying the best interests of the child test and the principles regarding joint custody, the court concluded that joint custody was inappropriate.

The mother was awarded sole custody, the father was granted specified access, and the request for a name change was denied.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for damages arising from an alleged franchise agreement and negligent misrepresentations regarding the viability of a Mitsubishi dealership.

The court found that the plaintiffs' action was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of the claim more than two years before commencing the action.

Furthermore, the court held that the alleged misrepresentations were forward-looking forecasts, which are not actionable, and that the entire agreement and release clauses in the dealer agreement provided a complete defence.

The action was dismissed, and the defendant's counterclaim for an unpaid debt was allowed.

The offender, a tax preparer, pleaded guilty to defrauding the federal government of over $1.1 million through false expense and childcare schemes.

He personally profited by $448,000.

The Crown sought a 3-year penitentiary sentence, while the offender sought a conditional sentence.

The court emphasized general deterrence and denunciation for large-scale frauds by persons in positions of trust.

The offender was sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment and ordered to pay a $448,000 fine in lieu of forfeiture, with an additional 3 years consecutive in default of payment.

The accused, Mechelle Rogers, was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after police found 1.5 kg of cocaine in the trunk of a vehicle in which she was a passenger.

At the close of the Crown's case, she brought a motion for a directed verdict.

The court applied the test for a directed verdict based on circumstantial evidence and the law of constructive possession.

The court found that while there was evidence she knew illegal activity was taking place, there was no evidence she knew the substance was cocaine or had any control over it.

The motion was granted and a directed verdict of acquittal was entered.