Kathryn Elizabeth Ball

The appellant, mother of a man who killed his father, appealed a motion judge's order striking her negligence claim against two psychiatrists who treated her son.

The motion judge had struck the claim alleging negligence in treatment, finding no established duty of care and that imposing such a duty would create an impossible conflict with the duty owed to the patient.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that while the duty of care was not within an established category, the conflict analysis was speculative and should be determined on a proper evidentiary record rather than at the pleadings stage.

The court distinguished the case from precedents involving child protection and medical treatment of pregnant women, emphasizing that the patient and his parents shared a common interest in appropriate treatment.

The plaintiff initiated a negligence action against two psychiatrists following a tragic incident where their son killed their spouse.

The defendants sought to strike the claim.

The court determined that a duty of care related to the negligent treatment of the patient by the psychiatrists could not be established due to inherent conflicts of interest between the patient's best interests and those of third parties.

However, the court found that a claim based on a duty to warn third parties of a patient's danger was novel but arguable, particularly in light of the public safety exception to confidentiality.

Despite this, the duty to warn claim was struck with leave to re-plead, as it lacked sufficient factual particularity to meet the criteria for establishing such a duty.

The plaintiffs brought eight proposed class actions against various long-term care (LTC) home owners and operators in Ontario, alleging systemic negligence and gross negligence in their response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court considered whether the claims met the certification criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, particularly in light of the statutory immunity provided by the Supporting Ontario's Recovery Act (SORA).

The court certified six of the actions against the main corporate groups, finding that the pleadings disclosed a viable cause of action in gross negligence and that a class action was the preferable procedure.

However, the court dismissed the certification motions against independently owned homes and municipalities due to the lack of a collective enterprise and missing representative plaintiffs.

The applicant sought an award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664, interest on overdue benefits, and costs following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent had initially denied a treatment plan based on the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limits but later removed the applicant from the MIG as a gesture of good faith.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's initial denial was reasonable based on the medical evidence provided and did not constitute unreasonable withholding or delay of benefits.

The applicant was awarded interest on incurred amounts, but claims for a special award and costs were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic, physiotherapy, and psychological assessments.

The respondent insurer denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence that his pre-existing left ankle injury, lumbar spine degeneration, or alleged psychological issues prevented him from achieving maximal recovery under the MIG cap.

Consequently, the Tribunal held that the injuries were predominantly minor, the MIG limits were exhausted, and the proposed treatments were not reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.

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

After her legal counsel was removed, the applicant failed to attend the scheduled arbitration hearing.

The insurer brought an oral motion to dismiss the application.

The arbitrator dismissed the application for arbitration due to the applicant's failure to attend and present evidence, concluding she had abandoned her claim.

The insurer was awarded $2,000 in expenses for unnecessary time and money spent defending the claim.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding the respondent bank's failure to abide by a provincial collective agreement during the construction of a bank branch.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the construction of banks falls within exclusive federal jurisdiction over banking.

The Board applied a functional test and determined that the construction of a bank building is a pre-operational task and not an integral part of the core banking function.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the preliminary objection, found it had jurisdiction to hear the grievance, and directed the matter to be re-listed for hearing.

The applicant union sought a declaration that the three respondent companies constituted one employer under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, and alleged a sale of business under section 63, as well as unfair labour practices.

The Board found that the respondents carried on associated or related activities under common control and direction, and declared them to be one employer bound by the provincial collective agreement.

The Board dismissed the sale of business application.

The Board also found that the respondents breached the collective agreement by failing to apply it to several construction projects, and violated sections 64, 66, and 67 of the Act by transferring work to a non-union entity to avoid the union and by bargaining directly with employees.

The applicant unions sought a related employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act to bind Delform Construction Limited and Ilena Construction Limited to the provincial ICI agreement binding Hardrock Forming Company.

The Board found that Delform had an established collective bargaining relationship with Labourers' Local 183.

The Board dismissed the application, reasoning that issuing a related employer declaration would create a conflict with Local 183's established bargaining rights and precipitate a jurisdictional dispute.