Justin Linden

In a medical negligence action, the plaintiff sought to call multiple expert witnesses of the same specialty to opine on the same issues.

During a trial management conference, the pretrial judge ordered the plaintiff to elect which experts would testify to avoid duplicative evidence.

The plaintiff objected, arguing that only the trial judge had jurisdiction to limit expert witnesses.

The court affirmed its jurisdiction under Rule 50 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to make orders streamlining expert evidence and preventing duplication, emphasizing the need for trial efficiency and early disclosure.

The defendants brought a motion at the commencement of trial to exclude a late-served expert radiology report from the plaintiff.

The plaintiff argued the report was necessary for a fair determination on the merits, as it analyzed actual CT images rather than relying on previous radiology reports.

The court found the evidence relevant, probative, and necessary.

The court granted leave to admit the late-served report and adjourned the trial to allow the defendants to obtain a responding radiologist's report.

The plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action against her rheumatologist, alleging he breached the standard of care by misdiagnosing her with gout, failing to perform a joint aspiration, and prescribing Allopurinol without informed consent, which led to her developing Stevens-Johnson Syndrome.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the defendant met the standard of care of a reasonable community rheumatologist in diagnosing gout clinically and prescribing Allopurinol.

The court also found that informed consent was obtained and that the plaintiff failed to prove causation, as expert evidence established she had a genetic predisposition making the adverse reaction inevitable regardless of the starting dose.

The defendants, who are psychotherapists sued for professional negligence in a family law dispute, moved for the production of the plaintiff's matrimonial lawyer's file.

The plaintiff opposed, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The court held that by pleading the defendants' misconduct caused him to incur approximately $900,000 in legal fees, the plaintiff put his state of mind and his lawyer's advice in issue.

The court found an implied waiver of privilege and ordered the production of the file, subject to specific claims of litigation privilege for documents prepared for the current action.

The plaintiffs requested a chambers appointment to establish a timetable in a negligence claim arising from a death at a long-term care facility.

The plaintiffs sought to amend their statement of claim to include punitive damages after discovering care providers allegedly falsified notes.

The court ordered a timetable for the motion to amend, production of medical records, and examinations for discovery.

The plaintiff sought damages for injuries sustained in an unprovoked assault at a banquet facility.

Three defendants were noted in default.

Following an assessment of damages hearing, the court awarded the plaintiff $125,000 for pain and suffering, $25,000 for future treatment, $2,296.87 for an OHIP subrogated claim, and $50,000 for loss of competitive advantage, totaling $202,296.87.

The court also awarded costs of $67,390.82 against the defaulting defendants.

Following a motion in a civil action involving a minor plaintiff, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

Although there had been some division of success on the underlying motion, the court found that the plaintiff had been substantially more successful overall.

Exercising its discretion on costs, the court fixed the amount payable rather than requiring further submissions.

The defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiff costs of the motion in a fixed sum inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 25(11)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike several paragraphs of the statement of claim alleging prior misconduct and knowledge of risk relating to an alleged assault against a minor in a hotel room, or alternatively sought particulars under Rule 25.10.

The court held that the plaintiffs were entitled at the pleading stage to make allegations relevant to negligence and vicarious liability, particularly where the defendants would possess the relevant knowledge regarding prior conduct.

The court declined to strike most of the impugned pleadings but found that certain paragraphs were duplicative or improperly framed as submissions rather than allegations.

The court struck limited portions of the pleading while otherwise allowing the claim to proceed.