Julia Lauwers

Following a successful medical malpractice trial resulting in a $5.3 million judgment for the plaintiffs, the court assessed costs.

The plaintiffs had beaten their $4.5 million offer to settle, entitling them to substantial indemnity costs from the date of the offer.

The court considered the complexity of the case, the extensive expert evidence required, and the proportionality of the costs to the recovery, ultimately fixing costs at $2,201,259 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

Following a trial judgment in a medical malpractice action, the court issued supplementary reasons to address pre-judgment interest and adjustments to future pecuniary losses.

The parties reached an agreement on these issues, excluding costs.

The court issued an order revising the total judgment granted in favour of the plaintiffs to $5,568,393.00, inclusive of pre-judgment interest and adjusted future pecuniary losses.

This dental malpractice action involved two summary judgment motions based on limitation periods.

The defendant dental surgeon, Dr. Harper, argued the action was time-barred by the one-year limitation period in the Health Professions Procedural Code.

The defendant Hospital relied on the two-year limitation period in the Public Hospitals Act.

The court dismissed Dr. Harper's motion, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding the plaintiff's discoverability of biological hazards.

However, the Hospital's motion was granted, as its limitation period was not subject to discoverability and had expired years before the action was commenced.

The minor plaintiff suffered a severe hypoxic-ischemic brain injury at birth due to the admitted negligence of the defendant hospital's nurses in artificially rupturing the membranes.

The defendant conceded the breach of the standard of care and that it caused the plaintiff's ataxic hypotonic cerebral palsy, but argued her cognitive and behavioural issues were caused by genetically inherited ADHD.

The court rejected the genetic ADHD theory, finding the birth injury was the sole cause of all the plaintiff's physical, cognitive, and behavioural deficits.

The court awarded over $5.2 million in damages, including $250,000 for general damages, $1.88 million for future loss of income, and extensive future care costs for therapies, supported independent living, and home modifications.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed all outstanding motions brought by the appellant in a matter that originated as a Small Claims Court action for professional negligence in dental treatment.

The appellant had persistently brought multiple motions and proceedings before various courts over several years, repeatedly failing to comply with procedural requirements and time limits.

The court found that the appellant's conduct constituted a frivolous, vexatious abuse of process and imposed restrictions on future filings, requiring leave of court and proof of service on respondent's counsel, as well as satisfaction of outstanding costs orders totalling $3,500.00.

The plaintiff brought a motion to dismiss the Registrar's orders dismissing his previous motions for delay.

The defendant brought a cross-motion to refer the proceeding to a panel of the Court of Appeal for a determination under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure that the proceeding is frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and to stay the plaintiff's motions pending that determination.

The court granted the cross-motion, finding that the plaintiff's repeated motions appeared to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and stayed the plaintiff's motions pending the panel's determination.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, alleging that a Master violated his Charter rights by ruling an affidavit inadmissible at a status hearing.

The affidavit contained references to disciplinary proceedings before the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario.

The Superior Court dismissed the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction to grant leave to the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, the court held that the Master correctly applied s. 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act in excluding the evidence, and that no Charter violations occurred.