Kate Martini

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their statement of claim to limit damages to $200,000 and continue the action under the simplified procedure (Rule 76).

The defendant opposed the motion, arguing that the amendment would result in non-compensable prejudice due to the loss of their substantive right to a jury trial.

The court granted the motion, finding that the striking of a jury notice alone, without specific evidence of non-compensable prejudice, is insufficient to deny an amendment.

The plaintiffs were granted leave to amend, and the defendant's jury notice was struck.

The decision addresses a motion regarding undertakings in a civil dispute between the West Niagara Baseball Association and its representatives, and several baseball associations and their representatives.

The plaintiffs sought orders compelling the defendants to provide further and unredacted answers to undertakings given on discovery, particularly regarding complaints made by parents that led to the plaintiffs’ suspension from operating a baseball league.

The court ordered the defendants to provide unredacted answers to certain undertakings and to make diligent efforts to contact a third party for information, but otherwise dismissed the motion.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Centa J. dated April 17, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the amount of $5,000.

The appellant, Ahmad Mohammad (also known as Ahmad Yousef), brought three appeals from Superior Court orders dismissing his actions under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court of Appeal considered dismissing the appeals and revoking the appellant's fee waivers under the Administration of Justice Act.

The court found the proceedings to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, lacking intelligible grounds or causes of action.

The panel review motions for two appeals (McMaster University and Chaimowitz) were dismissed under r. 2.1.02, and the third appeal (Google) was dismissed under r. 2.1.01 for failure to perfect.

The court also revoked the appellant's fee waivers and prohibited further fee waiver requests without judicial permission.

No costs were awarded.

The plaintiffs in two medical negligence actions appealed a decision dismissing their motions to compel production of documents and answers to discovery questions related to hospital quality of care reviews.

The Associate Justice had found the information irrelevant and protected by common law quality assurance privilege.

On appeal, the court found the documents and questions to be relevant but upheld the Associate Justice's conclusion that a common law evidentiary privilege (Wigmore test) applied to the quality assurance communications, and that the Quality of Care Information Protection Act, 2016 (QCIPA) did not abrogate this common law privilege.

The appeals were dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to discontinue a proposed class action in Ontario regarding illnesses allegedly caused by the herbicide Gramoxone.

The plaintiff, a resident of British Columbia, preferred to proceed as a class member in a parallel action in British Columbia.

The defendants opposed the discontinuance, arguing it was a tactical move to avoid litigating in Ontario.

The court granted the discontinuance with prejudice, finding no prejudice to putative class members and noting that the defendants' concerns could be addressed through costs.

The court awarded the defendants costs of $71,807.32 on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action against a pathologist for failing to diagnose appendiceal cancer from an appendectomy specimen in 2011.

The patient was later diagnosed with stage IV cancer in 2015 and died in 2016.

The court found that the pathologist breached the standard of care, as the cancer was obvious and should have been identified.

The court also found that but for the delayed diagnosis, the patient would likely have been cured with standard treatment.

The court awarded pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages to the estate and family members.