Katherine A. Booth

The plaintiff was diagnosed with breast cancer that metastasized to her bones.

She brought a medical malpractice action against her radiologist and general surgeon, alleging their negligence caused a nine-month delay in diagnosis.

The court found both doctors breached their respective standards of care: the radiologist failed to order further imaging for suspicious microcalcifications, and the surgeon failed to properly investigate discordant biopsy results or follow up on the original lump.

The court concluded that but for the delay, the plaintiff's cancer would have been diagnosed at Stage I and cured.

The plaintiff was awarded damages for pain and suffering, income loss, and Family Law Act claims.

The appellants appealed a judgment declaring them vexatious litigants.

They failed to appear at the hearing.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the application judge's reasons and the appellants' written arguments, finding no merit to the appeal and agreeing that the appellants' conduct met the definition of vexatious litigants.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The moving party, a former client of the responding parties, sought leave to appeal an order dismissing his motion for a refund of solicitor's invoices.

The motion judge had found that the moving party fraudulently added a 50% discount term to the billing agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions, no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order, and no issues of general importance.

The applicant pipeline company sought an urgent ex parte interim and interlocutory injunction restraining unknown protesters from trespassing on a valve installation site required for pipeline infrastructure work.

Protesters had occupied the site to oppose the reversal of oil flow in a major pipeline project, delaying scheduled construction and causing economic disruption.

The court accepted that the applicant had proprietary rights through an easement and that trespass ordinarily supports injunctive relief, but emphasized that political protest engages Charter values and that protesters should have an opportunity to be heard.

Balancing property rights, economic harm, and freedom of expression, the court granted a short-term ex parte injunction due to the difficulty of identifying or serving protesters.

The injunction was limited in duration and required the applicant to return to court on notice if it sought continuation of the order.