Kelly Hayden

The plaintiff, Hayley Szeto, brought a medical negligence claim against her gynecologist surgeon, Dr. Sari Kives, after suffering a bowel perforation during a reproductive organ surgery.

The plaintiff alleged the defendant fell below the standard of care by failing to detect and repair the perforation.

The court found that the bowel injury occurred during the surgery and was significant (1-2 cm), and that the defendant failed to adequately inspect the bowel, especially given additional risk factors like significant adhesions, uterine fundus perforation, obesity, and epiploica.

The court concluded that the defendant's failure to meet the standard of care caused the plaintiff's damages, leading to emergency surgery and severe complications.

The plaintiffs in a medical malpractice action brought a motion to extend the time for service of the statement of claim on two defendant physicians, and to validate service by email.

The two physicians had left the country and were difficult to locate.

The court granted the extension of time nunc pro tunc, finding no prejudice to the defendants and that the plaintiffs had made reasonable efforts to locate them.

The court validated service by email on one physician, but declined to validate service on the other physician residing in Israel, as the plaintiffs failed to establish that email service was permitted under the Hague Convention.

The plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action against two radiologists for failing to detect a lung lesion on three chest x-rays taken between April 2012 and June 2013.

The court found that both radiologists breached the standard of care by failing to identify the abnormality.

On causation, the court held that 'but for' the first radiologist's failure to detect the lesion in April 2012, the plaintiff would not have required adjuvant chemotherapy, suffered a recurrence of his lung cancer, or experienced the associated psychological harm.

However, the court found that the second radiologist's failure to detect the lesion in October 2012 did not cause the plaintiff's outcome, as the cancer had already progressed to a stage requiring the same treatment.

The first radiologist was found liable for the agreed-upon damages, and the action against the second radiologist was dismissed.

The plaintiff underwent a laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy performed by the defendant gynecologist.

Following the surgery, the plaintiff experienced incontinence and was diagnosed with a vesicovaginal fistula caused by two sutures inadvertently placed in her bladder.

The parties agreed on damages prior to trial, leaving only the issue of liability.

The court found that the defendant failed to adequately mobilize the bladder during the procedure, leading to the inadvertent suturing.

The court concluded that the placement of the sutures was the result of negligence rather than non-negligent surgical misadventure, and granted judgment for the plaintiff.

Following a successful appeal where the court suggested wording to amend section 22 of a condominium declaration regarding the duty to repair and maintain, the parties were unable to agree on the final wording.

The appellant accepted the court's proposed wording, while the respondents sought different wording and the removal of a paragraph from the earlier reasons.

The Court of Appeal rejected the respondents' submissions as an attempt to reargue the decided issues and ordered that the formal order reflect the court's originally proposed wording.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a decision refusing to amend its declaration under s. 109(3) of the Condominium Act.

The dispute centered on who should bear the cost of replacing deteriorated chimney flues that exclusively serviced 22 residential units.

The Court of Appeal found that the application judge erred in concluding there was no inconsistency between sections 22 and 23 of the declaration.

The Court held that the sections failed to clearly delineate the responsibilities for repairing exclusive use common elements after normal wear and tear, creating an unworkable mutual obligation.

The appeal was allowed and an order was granted to amend the declaration to clarify that unit owners are responsible for maintaining and repairing exclusive use common elements at their own expense.

The member faced allegations of professional misconduct for issuing false and misleading insurance receipts, falsifying treatment records, and forging client signatures on consent forms submitted to an insurance provider.

The member admitted to the allegations via an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee found the member committed professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a public reprimand, a seven-month suspension of the member's certificate of registration, terms and conditions requiring courses in professional ethics and a College assessment, and $7,500 in costs.

The applicant condominium corporation sought to amend its Declaration under section 109 of the Condominium Act, 1998, to address issues concerning wood-burning fireplaces and chimney flues.

Specifically, it requested amendments to designate chimney flues as exclusive use common elements, to shift the responsibility for their maintenance and repair from the corporation to the unit owners, and to redefine unit boundaries to include the entire length of the chimney flues.

The court granted the order to amend the Declaration to specify the chimney flues as exclusive use common elements, finding an error in the original Declaration's omission to specify such elements.

However, the court dismissed the requests to alter the maintenance and repair obligations, concluding there was no error or inconsistency in the existing mutual duties, and rejected the proposed redefinition of unit boundaries, finding the current description unambiguous.

The plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action against the defendant obstetrician, alleging that he negligently caused a permanent brachial plexus injury to the infant plaintiff during delivery.

The plaintiffs argued that the defendant applied excessive downward lateral traction and improperly directed supra-pubic pressure after encountering shoulder dystocia.

The court found that the defendant met the standard of care expected of an obstetrician in 2004, properly executing the required maneuvers to resolve the obstetrical emergency.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the mere presence of the injury inferred excessive traction, noting that medical literature and expert evidence established that such injuries can occur from endogenous forces or gentle traction.

The action was dismissed.

This is an appeal from a Superior Court decision.

The appellants sought to appeal an order of Justice Edward M. Morgan dated June 6, 2018.

The respondents were successful on the appeal.

The court determined costs payable to the successful respondents.

The appellants made a one-million-dollar charitable donation to a mental health hospital for a designated workplace mental health program over three years.

When dissatisfied with the program's progress and reporting, the donor sought an investigation by the Public Guardian and Trustee under the Charities Accounting Act.

The motion judge dismissed the application, finding no evidence of mismanagement or misuse of funds.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, finding no error in the motion judge's findings that the funds were properly spent on the designated program and that no public interest was served by ordering an investigation.

The Discipline Committee held a penalty hearing for a member found to have committed professional misconduct, including sexual abuse of a patient, performing unauthorized controlled acts, and failing to cooperate with a College investigation.

The member did not attend the hearing.

The Committee determined that recent legislative amendments mandating revocation for certain forms of sexual abuse applied retrospectively to the member's conduct.

Consequently, the Committee directed the Registrar to revoke the member's certificate of registration.

The Committee also ordered the member to receive a public reprimand, post $16,060 as security for the victim's therapy and counselling, and pay $20,000 in costs to the College.

The appellant, 2138746 Ontario Inc., appealed a trial judgment finding that the respondent, Friday Harbour Village Inc., acquired legal and beneficial ownership of the Marina Strip by adverse possession, did not abandon its titled right of way over the Marina Strip, had a prescriptive easement over the Marina Strip, and did not commit actionable trespass.

The respondent cross-appealed a finding that its right of way over the Western Strip was abandoned.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all appeals, upholding the trial judge's findings on adverse possession and related matters.

The College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists of Ontario brought allegations of professional misconduct against the member, including sexual abuse, performing unauthorized controlled acts (ozone injections), and failing to cooperate with an investigation.

The member did not attend the hearing.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of all allegations, concluding that he touched a patient's breasts and genitals without consent, administered unauthorized injections, and ignored a previous suspension order and investigator requests.

The member was previously found to have committed professional misconduct involving fraud and falsified treatment records.

The member resigned from the College and did not participate in the penalty hearing.

The Discipline Committee ordered a public reprimand and a 12-month suspension should the member re-apply for registration.

The Committee also ordered the member to pay $10,000 in costs to the College, representing approximately 60% of the College's incurred costs.

The Member was previously found to have committed professional misconduct by making unsubstantiated claims, recommending treatment without diagnosis, and using prohibited titles.

At the penalty hearing, the Discipline Committee ordered a 14-month suspension, a public reprimand, and a practice reassessment if the Member returns to practice.

The Committee also ordered the Member to pay $60,000 in costs to the College, noting the seriousness of the misconduct and the Member's lack of insight and remorse.

This costs endorsement follows the dismissal of Luciano Sammut's application for adverse possession.

The respondent, Heather McGhee Peggs, sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the application was commenced to interfere with her property sale.

The court found no reprehensible conduct by the applicant to warrant substantial indemnity costs and determined that Rule 49.10 did not apply to the respondent's offer to settle as the applicant's claim failed.

Considering the importance of the boundary issue, the complexity, and comparable counsel time, the court fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis at $32,267.53, inclusive of disbursements and HST, to be paid by the applicant.

The Member was found to have committed professional misconduct by falsifying records, submitting a false account, and failing to meet record-keeping standards.

At the penalty hearing, the College sought revocation of the Member's certificate of registration, while the Member proposed a 3-6 month suspension.

The Discipline Committee ordered a reprimand, a 6-month suspension, and the completion of remedial courses in ethics and record-keeping.

The Committee also ordered the Member to pay $120,000 in costs to the College, noting that the Member's conduct during the hearing unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings.

The applicant sought a declaration of ownership and exclusive use over a strip of land via adverse possession.

The properties were converted to Land Titles in 2002, requiring the applicant to prove adverse possession for the continuous ten-year period from December 1992 to December 2002.

While the court found actual possession of the disputed land by the applicant's predecessors in title, it determined that the applicant failed to demonstrate the requisite intention to exclude the true owner or establish mutual or unilateral mistake, primarily due to a lack of direct evidence from predecessors in title during the relevant period.

Consequently, the application was dismissed.

The College alleged that the Member engaged in professional misconduct by submitting false claims for acupuncture services to an insurance company and failing to cooperate with a College investigation.

An undercover police officer posed as a patient and the Member submitted claims for services that were never provided.

The Member also failed to respond to multiple inquiries from the College regarding her practice status and a related criminal investigation.

The Discipline Committee found all allegations of professional misconduct proven in the Member's absence.