Kirk Frederick Stevens

The appellant doctor appealed a trial judgment finding him liable in medical malpractice for failing to detect a lump on the respondent's testicle or advise him of the potential seriousness of his condition.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by ignoring a respectable body of medical opinion that supported not alarming the patient.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge did not choose between competing opinions on the standard of care for a family practitioner, as the appellant's expert was a urologist.

The Court upheld the finding that the appellant was negligent in failing to detect the lump or impress upon the patient the need for further examination.

The appellant bank and respondent trust company entered into agreements to finance a condominium project.

When the real estate market collapsed, the respondent breached its commitment to provide takeout financing, leaving the appellant with a significant shortfall.

The trial judge awarded the appellant damages including compound pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the rate specified in the loan agreement.

The Court of Appeal substituted simple interest.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that courts have jurisdiction at common law and in equity to award compound interest as expectation damages to fully compensate a plaintiff for the time-value of money.

The appellant doctor appealed a trial judgment finding him liable for failing to warn the respondent about the risks of taking the drug AC&C with her ulcer condition.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the respondent failed to prove causation.

Applying the modified objective test, the Court held that the respondent did not establish that a reasonable person in her circumstances would have refused the drug if properly warned, especially given evidence that she had previously ignored another doctor's warning to stop taking it.

The insured died accidentally when a cocaine-filled condom burst in his stomach.

The appellant insurer refused to pay the life insurance proceeds to the respondent, the insured's former spouse and designated innocent beneficiary, arguing that public policy prevents a person from insuring against their own criminal act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the public policy rule preventing a criminal from profiting from their crime does not apply to an innocent beneficiary claiming in their own right, rather than through the criminal's estate.

The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was entitled to the insurance proceeds.

The appellant's home was destroyed by fire.

The respondent insurer denied the claim, alleging arson, despite its own experts and investigators concluding the fire was accidental.

The insurer maintained this bad faith defence through a lengthy trial to force a lower settlement.

The jury awarded compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages.

The Court of Appeal reduced the punitive damages to $100,000.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the $1 million jury award, holding that the insurer's breach of the duty of good faith was an independent actionable wrong and the jury's award, while high, was a rational response to the insurer's exceptionally reprehensible conduct.

The respondent successfully sued the appellants for negligence after a real estate venture failed due to soil contamination.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial judge's decision.

The Court found no duty of care existed, as the appellants never undertook to provide legal advice and advised investors to seek their own.

Furthermore, there was no evidence that the failure to obtain legal advice caused the respondent's loss, and the claim was barred by the six-year limitation period.

The appeal was allowed and the action dismissed.

The appellants appealed a decision finding that a commercial general liability (CGL) policy provided coverage for an accident involving a supply truck.

An employee negligently left a steel base plate unsecured on the truck during a work site clean up, which later flew off and struck a school bus.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the accident resulted from two concurrent causes: the negligent clean up of the work site (non-auto-related) and the negligent operation of the truck (auto-related).

The Court found that the CGL policy's automobile exclusion clause did not oust coverage for the non-auto-related negligence, as there is no presumption that all coverage is excluded when one concurrent cause is an excluded peril.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a prime contractor, carried the respondent subcontractor's low bid for electrical work in its successful tender for a hospital construction project.

The appellant had assured the respondent that its non-IBEW union affiliation would not be an issue.

However, after the Ontario Labour Relations Board ruled that the appellant was bound to use only IBEW-affiliated subcontractors, the appellant refused to enter into a subcontract with the respondent and awarded the work to an IBEW subcontractor at the respondent's bid price.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that a Contract A was formed when the appellant carried the respondent's bid, obligating the appellant to award the subcontract absent a reasonable objection.

The appellant's objection was unreasonable given its prior assurances and knowledge of the union issue.

The Court dismissed the appeal on liability and allowed the respondent's cross-appeal on damages, awarding $365,143 for lost profits.

The appellant police services board appealed a judgment imposing civil liability for an allegedly unlawful warrantless arrest arising from a neighbourhood assault complaint.

The court held that the lower courts erred by treating non-compliance with s. 495(2) of the Criminal Code as sufficient to establish arbitrary detention under s. 9 of the Charter.

Applying prior authority, the court found the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds, acted in the public interest context of escalating neighbour conflict, and did not act capriciously, despotically, or unjustifiably.

The appeal was allowed, liability for the first arrest was set aside, and damages were reduced from $6,000 to $3,000 to reflect the uncontested second arrest.

The appeal concerned whether a municipality widening a road and installing a continuous centre median was required under s. 298(1) of the Municipal Act to provide another means of access to a commercial property whose direct left-turn access was restricted but not entirely eliminated.

The court held that s. 298(1) applies only where the effect of the by-law is to deprive the landowner of the only means of ingress and egress to the highway.

A mere limitation on access, even if commercially significant, does not trigger the statutory right to alternate access.

The respondents' remedy was confined to compensation for injurious affection under the Expropriations Act.

The appeal was allowed and the declaratory relief was set aside.

The insurer appealed a trial judgment granting disability benefits despite findings of material misrepresentations about health and income.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred by failing to consider recklessness as a basis for civil fraud under the governing test, and further held that on reinstatement of the policy the insured had a positive duty to disclose facts plainly bearing on insurability, including the absence of any insurable income, even where the insurer did not insist on a written reinstatement application.

Because the nondisclosure at reinstatement occurred within two years, the incontestability clause did not protect the insured.

The policy was voidable and the action was dismissed.

The appellant contractor sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision upholding a union grievance.

The appellant alleged a breach of natural justice because a draft decision dismissing the grievance was changed to uphold it after a full board meeting.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that institutional consultation does not breach natural justice provided it is limited to questions of policy and law, and the adjudicators remain free to decide.

The Court found no evidence that factual matters were improperly discussed at the full board meeting, and the change in the decision concerned a matter of law and policy regarding the abandonment of bargaining rights.

In a commercial lending dispute arising from failed condominium project financing, the appellants challenged findings that they breached the original takeout mortgage commitment, the assignment of takeout financing, and a later amended commitment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the liability findings, concluding the appellants had no lawful basis to refuse funding in 1991 or 1992 and that the respondent was entitled to full damages from the earlier repudiation.

The court held, however, that compound interest was not available under s. 130 of the Courts of Justice Act and was not justified on equitable grounds in an ordinary breach of contract claim.

The appeal was therefore allowed only to substitute simple interest for compound interest.

The appellants sought judicial review to quash notices of potential findings of misconduct issued by the Commissioner of the Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada.

The appellants argued the Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction by making findings that amounted to civil or criminal liability, and that the late delivery of the notices breached procedural fairness.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that a commissioner may make findings of misconduct and evaluate facts according to standards of conduct, provided they do not amount to conclusions of legal liability.

The Court also found the procedural protections afforded to the parties were extensive and the timing of the notices was fair given the complexity of the inquiry.

The appeal concerned whether an accountant providing tax planning and investment advice owed fiduciary duties to a client where the advisor fostered trust and reliance while failing to disclose a financial relationship with the developers of the recommended tax shelter investments.

The majority held that a fact-based fiduciary relationship arose because the client reasonably expected independent advice given solely in his best interests, and the undisclosed conflict breached both fiduciary and contractual duties.

The Court restored the trial judgment awarding restitutionary damages equal to the client's net losses, holding the breaching advisor bore the market risk once the client proved he would not have entered the investments but for the non-disclosure.

The dissent would have confined fiduciary duties to relationships of total dependency and would have limited contract damages because the market collapse, not the non-disclosure, caused the devaluation.

The respondent was charged under a municipal by-law that prohibited all postering on public property after he affixed posters to hydro poles to advertise his band's performances.

He challenged the constitutionality of the by-law under s. 2(b) of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that postering conveys a meaning and is a protected form of expression under s. 2(b).

The Court found that the absolute ban on postering on public property infringed freedom of expression.

While the by-law's objectives of preventing litter, aesthetic blight, and safety hazards were pressing and substantial, the complete ban did not minimally impair the right and could not be justified under s. 1 of the Charter.

The Crown appealed a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal which had struck down a reverse onus provision in the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, applying its recent decision in R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc. The Court held that while the requirement for the accused to establish due diligence on a balance of probabilities restricts the presumption of innocence under s. 11(d) of the Charter, it is a justifiable limit under s. 1.

The case was remitted to the Court of Appeal to dispose of the remaining grounds of appeal.

The respondent was seriously injured when he slipped and fell on the icy parking area of a rural farmhouse rented by the appellants.

The parking area had not been salted or sanded, which the appellants argued was consistent with local custom.

The respondent sued for damages under the Occupiers' Liability Act.

The trial judge found the appellants liable, and the Court of Appeal dismissed their appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants breached their statutory duty of care under s. 3(1) of the Act by doing nothing to make the premises reasonably safe.

The Court further held that the respondent's mere knowledge of the icy conditions did not mean he willingly assumed the legal risks under s. 4(1) of the Act, which preserves the strict volenti non fit injuria doctrine.