Kate Mazzucco

In a common issues trial arising from a certified class proceeding, the court held that a cosmetic surgery clinic and its physician-owner were negligent, breached fiduciary duties, and committed intrusion upon seclusion by operating surveillance cameras in consultation rooms, treatment rooms, pre- and post-operative areas, and the operating room without patient knowledge or consent.

The court rejected the submission that the cameras were justified as security measures, finding instead that they served the defendants’ self-protective interests and recorded highly private medical interactions for no medical purpose.

The court held that no trust relationship over the footage was established, but found vicarious liability and concluded that the intrusion upon seclusion claim could be determined on a class-wide basis using an objective standard.

Aggregate damages of $21,500,000 were awarded for intrusion upon seclusion, together with $1,000,000 in punitive damages, while negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claims requiring proof of individual harm were left for further process.

During a class action trial involving cosmetic surgery patients and allegations related to social media consent forms, the defendants called a witness and sought to qualify him as an expert in eDiscovery document collection and retention.

The plaintiffs objected on the basis that the witness lacked independence and impartiality, having blindly followed counsel's instructions and failed to ensure compliance with PHIPA.

The court ruled that the proposed evidence was factual in nature rather than expert opinion, as the witness was simply explaining the steps he took and the data he extracted from electronic medical records.

Since the evidence was factual and not presumptively inadmissible opinion evidence, the court did not need to address the impartiality objections, but noted that cross-examination on those issues could be relevant to the weight of the evidence.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits and raised a preliminary issue that the applicant was barred from proceeding to a hearing because he failed to attend a scheduled insurer's examination under section 44 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the notice of examination was compliant with the Schedule and that the examination was reasonably necessary.

As a result, the applicant was barred from proceeding with his application under section 55 of the Schedule.

The defendants sought a reconsideration of a costs decision following a class action certification motion, arguing for no costs due to divided success because only one of the plaintiffs' two distinct cases was certified.

The court rejected this argument, finding that the joinder of claims was proper under the Rules of Civil Procedure and consistent with the principle of avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings.

The original costs award of $150,000 to the plaintiffs was confirmed.

Following the successful certification of a class proceeding, the plaintiffs sought costs.

The parties agreed that $150,000, all inclusive, was a fair and reasonable amount for the certification motion, which included $5,000 for a motion to strike an affidavit.

The defendants did not deliver any costs submissions opposing the request.

The court found the agreed amount to be fair and reasonable and awarded the plaintiffs $150,000 in costs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against a plastic surgeon and his clinic for breach of privacy.

The claims involved two main grievances: the surreptitious video surveillance of patients in the clinic (the Surveillance Complaint) and the posting of patient images on social media without valid consent (the Social Media Complaint).

The court certified the Surveillance Complaint, finding it met all criteria under s. 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

However, the court declined to certify the Social Media Complaint, concluding that the issue of valid consent was highly idiosyncratic and required individual inquiries, meaning it failed the common issues and preferable procedure criteria.

The defendants in a proposed class action for breach of privacy brought a preliminary motion to strike portions of affidavits filed by the plaintiffs in support of certification.

The court granted the motion, striking evidence that was irrelevant, prejudicial, or detailed a College of Physicians and Surgeons investigation contrary to section 36 of the Regulated Health Professions Act.

The defendants in a proposed class action for breach of privacy brought a preliminary motion to strike the expert report of Dr. Mary Anne Franks, proffered by the plaintiffs for the certification motion.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendants surreptitiously recorded patients and posted images online without consent.

The court granted the motion to strike, finding that Dr. Franks' evidence regarding the social and cultural context of non-consensual image distribution and American law was not relevant or helpful to determining the common issues for certification.

In a proposed class action against a plastic surgeon for breach of privacy involving surreptitious video recording and unauthorized social media postings, the plaintiffs brought a preliminary motion for leave to deliver a supplementary affidavit regarding class size after cross-examinations had concluded.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants had provided their best information based on the plaintiffs' class definition, the supplementary evidence did not respond to matters raised on cross-examination, and allowing the affidavit would amount to prejudicial case-splitting.

The plaintiffs in a proposed privacy class action brought a preliminary motion to strike the complete clinical medical charts and medical records of the plaintiffs and two deponents, which were included in the responding affidavits of the defendant doctor.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendants surreptitiously recorded patients and posted images on social media without consent.

The court granted the motion, finding that the detailed medical records were irrelevant and inadmissible for the purposes of the certification motion, as the action concerned privacy breaches rather than medical malpractice.

The insurer appealed an Arbitrator's decision denying its motion to stay or dismiss the arbitration.

The insurer argued that the arbitration duplicated claims made in a concurrent Superior Court action arising from the same motor vehicle accident.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, finding that the Arbitrator correctly applied the Wasiela factors and concluded that the issues were not substantially similar.

The court action sought declaratory relief regarding a priority dispute, whereas the arbitration involved specific claims for accident benefits.

The insurer brought a motion to dismiss or stay the applicant's arbitration for statutory accident benefits, arguing that the applicant was already pursuing a civil action in the Superior Court of Justice arising from the same motor vehicle accident.

The arbitrator applied the Wasiela factors to determine whether the concurrent proceedings should be permitted.

The arbitrator found that the civil action, while broader in scope, primarily dealt with coverage and priority disputes among insurers and did not address the specific medical benefits claimed in the arbitration.

Given the imminent arbitration hearing and the potential delay in the civil action, the arbitrator concluded that the arbitration did not unduly duplicate proceedings and dismissed the insurer's motion.