Katherine R. Costin

The appellants (defendant doctors) appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for failing to obtain informed consent for a multi-step medical treatment plan that resulted in catastrophic brain injury to the plaintiff.

The appeal addressed the nature and extent of a physician's duty to obtain informed consent, on which physicians this duty rests, sufficiency of reasons, evidentiary issues (including expert witness exclusion), and costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that all three appellant doctors failed to provide adequate disclosure regarding the cumulative risks of the treatment plan, and that the plaintiff would not have proceeded had he been properly informed.

Leave to appeal costs was refused.

This motion concerned a request for a stay pending appeal of a judgment secured by Lithium Royalty Corporation (LRC) after a bifurcated liability hearing in a breach of contract action.

The moving parties (Orion entities) sought a full stay of the underlying action and their appeal.

The court dismissed the motion for a full stay of the underlying action but granted a partial stay against two specific respondents, Bellatrix Ltd. and Orion Mine Finance (Master) Fund I LP, preventing enforcement actions without leave, due to the apparent strength of their appeals regarding corporate separateness.

The court also ordered a stay of the appeal itself (COA-23-CV-1029) pending the conclusion of the underlying trial to promote judicial efficiency and avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

The applicant, Lithium Royalty Corporation (LRC), brought an application to enforce an alleged contract for the purchase of an 85% interest in a lithium mining royalty from Orion Resource Partners (Orion).

The court addressed three main issues: whether LRC should be granted leave to add specific Orion entities as respondents (misnomer/amendment), whether the court had jurisdiction over these proposed respondents, and whether an enforceable contract was formed.

The court granted leave to add the Orion entities, finding they had voluntarily attorned to the court's jurisdiction.

It further found that a binding and enforceable contract for the royalty purchase was formed between LRC and Orion, and that this contract was not void under Nevada's Statute of Frauds.

This decision concerns the award of costs following a successful application for specific performance of a real estate transaction.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs, totaling over $108,000.

The respondents argued the costs were excessive and that they lacked the means to pay.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs, finding the respondents' conduct throughout the litigation warranted such a sanction.

The judge cited the respondents' actions in raising baseless issues, causing delay and friction, the asymmetrical importance of the issues to the parties, and the advancement of unproved allegations of dishonesty as key factors justifying the award.

The applicant sought specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale for a commercial property needed for a land assembly development.

The respondents repudiated the agreement, arguing that the wife was coerced into signing and did not sign all portions of the document.

The court found that a binding agreement was formed, rejecting the coercion claims as unsupported and finding the signatures sufficient.

The court granted specific performance, holding that the property was unique to the applicant's development plans and damages would be inadequate.

The appellant sought to introduce fresh evidence on a motion to extend time to perfect an appeal.

The fresh evidence demonstrated that counsel's inadvertence had prevented important evidence from being presented to the motion judge regarding the test for extending time to perfect the appeal.

The Court of Appeal found that the interests of justice required admission of the fresh evidence and that it called into serious question the motion judge's conclusions on the merits, particularly regarding whether a reasonable explanation for the appellant's delay existed.

The Court set aside the motion judge's order dismissing the appeal for delay and extended the time to perfect the appeal to February 16, 2018.