Kosta Kalogiros

This medical negligence action involved cross-motions concerning the admissibility of expert evidence.

The plaintiff sought to admit five expert reports, arguing they fell within the scope of the Amended Statement of Claim, including claims for negligent post-operative care.

The defendants sought to declare portions of these reports inadmissible, arguing they concerned new causes of action (endoscopic exploration and orbital wall decompression) previously ruled statute-barred by a prior motion judge.

The court found that the Amended Claim did not plead general post-operative care and that the 'Other Procedures' were distinct surgical events, not post-operative care.

The court ruled that expert opinions on the statute-barred procedures were irrelevant and inadmissible, also applying the doctrine of res judicata as an exclusionary rule.

The plaintiff's motion was dismissed, and the defendants' motion was granted.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following the successful summary judgment motions by the defendants, Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences and Dr. Omar Ghaffar, which dismissed the plaintiff's action.

The self-represented plaintiff failed to submit costs submissions.

The court awarded discounted costs to the defendants, finding their claims reasonable given the serious allegations, voluminous medical records, and the necessity of expert reports, despite the plaintiff's self-represented status and limited means.

The defendants, Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences and Dr. Omar Ghaffar, brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss a medical malpractice action.

The plaintiff, Donald Jameson Whitehead, failed to file any expert evidence or affidavit evidence in response, despite being self-represented and advised of the requirements.

The court found that the defendants had discharged their evidentiary burden by providing expert opinions that their care met the standard of care and that consent was properly obtained.

Given the plaintiff's failure to adduce expert evidence, which is generally fatal in medical malpractice cases except in the clearest of circumstances, the court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The motions for summary judgment were granted, and the action was dismissed.

Cineplex and Cineworld entered into an Arrangement Agreement for Cineworld to acquire Cineplex for $2.8 billion.

Following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and mandated theatre closures, Cineplex deferred payments to landlords and suppliers to manage liquidity.

Cineworld terminated the agreement, alleging Cineplex breached the ordinary course covenant.

The court found that Cineplex's cash management measures were commercially reasonable and did not breach the agreement, noting that the pandemic risk was allocated to Cineworld under the Material Adverse Effect clause.

Cineworld's termination was a repudiation, and Cineplex was awarded $1.24 billion in damages for lost synergies and transaction costs.

This appeal concerned a medical negligence action where the appellant gynecologist failed to perform an endometrial biopsy on the deceased, Armineh Hacopian-Armen, in 2009, leading to a delayed diagnosis of Stage IV uterine leiomyosarcoma (uLMS) and her subsequent death.

The trial judge found the gynecologist liable for breaching the standard of care and for factual and legal causation.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the findings on causation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's conclusions that the appellant's negligence caused the harm, emphasizing the deference owed to a trial judge's assessment of expert evidence and the foreseeability of the type of harm.

This costs endorsement followed successful appeals by the Fram and Kerbel entities against Romandale Farms Limited.

Romandale had initially been awarded substantial indemnity costs for four intertwined actions tried together.

The Court of Appeal, applying the principle of overall success rather than issue-by-issue determination, found that Fram and Kerbel were entitled to partial indemnity costs for the original actions, having achieved overall success on appeal and having beaten a joint settlement offer.

The appellants, Fram and Kerbel, appealed a trial judgment that declared a 2005 land sale agreement between Kerbel and Romandale at an end.

The trial judge had found that Kerbel repudiated the agreement by entering into a settlement agreement with Fram that delayed the closing of the land sale until after secondary plan approval.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals, finding that Romandale was estopped by convention from asserting that the settlement agreement breached the 2005 agreement, as all parties had shared the assumption that the sale could only close after secondary plan approval.

The Court also held that the 2005 agreement was not frustrated or void for mistake, Kerbel's claim was not limitation-barred, and Kerbel was entitled to specific performance because the lands were unique.

This decision addresses the costs arising from a decade-long, four-action litigation where Romandale Farms Limited was the successful party.

Romandale sought substantial indemnity costs against Fram and Kerbel (and their associated entities).

The court found that Fram and Kerbel's conduct throughout the litigation was "reprehensible and deserving of sanction," including pursuing meritless claims for tactical reasons, making disingenuous arguments, and principals giving false evidence.

The court awarded Romandale substantial indemnity costs of $2,708,651.57, inclusive of fees and disbursements, payable jointly and severally by Fram and Kerbel, finding the amount fair and reasonable given the complexity, stakes, and the losing parties' conduct.

Multiple actions arising from a complex land development dispute involving co-ownership agreements for two farm properties in Markham.

Fram alleged Romandale breached the co-ownership agreements by entering into a conditional agreement to sell its interest to Kerbel.

Kerbel later entered into a settlement agreement with Fram to delay the closing of its purchase from Romandale for decades.

The court found that Romandale did not breach the co-ownership agreements.

Furthermore, the court held that Kerbel repudiated its agreement with Romandale by entering into the settlement agreement with Fram, which fundamentally altered the timeline for closing.

All claims by Fram and Kerbel against Romandale were dismissed, and Romandale was granted a declaration that its agreement with Kerbel was at an end.

A self-represented litigant appealed eight decisions from the Superior Court of Justice dismissing his actions as frivolous and vexatious under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and a vexatious litigant designation under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellant's claims related to complaints about interactions with government agencies, law enforcement, and mental health and medical personnel spanning multiple years and incidents.

The Court of Appeal upheld all dismissals, finding the pleadings fell far short of procedural requirements, failed to advance any justiciable cause of action, and exhibited hallmarks of vexatious proceedings including rambling discourse, grandiose damage claims, and repetitious allegations across multiple proceedings.

The plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action against two anaesthetists after experiencing intra-operative awareness during a robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy.

Due to the plaintiff's malignant hyperthermia, the defendants used Total Intravenous Anaesthesia (TIVA) rather than inhaled anaesthetic gases.

The court found that the supervising anaesthetist met the standard of care.

However, the court found that the primary anaesthetist breached the standard of care by administering an inadequate infusion rate of Propofol, particularly after significantly reducing the nitrous oxide levels.

The court concluded that this breach caused the plaintiff's intra-operative awareness.

The defendant, Romandale Farms Limited, brought a motion for leave to amend its statement of defence, add third parties, consolidate actions, and dissolve a 2007 interlocutory injunction in a complex commercial real estate dispute.

The plaintiff opposed the amendments, arguing prejudice, res judicata, and withdrawal of an admission.

The court granted leave to amend, finding no non-compensable prejudice and that the proposed defences were tenable and responsive to the plaintiff's amended claims regarding a partial settlement agreement.

The court also joined one third party for limited purposes to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and dissolved the 2007 injunction, as the plaintiff no longer claimed a proprietary interest in the land.

The defendant brought a motion at a status hearing to dismiss the plaintiffs' medical malpractice action for delay.

The action was commenced in 2000 and the statement of defence was filed in 2002, resulting in an 11-year delay before the status notice was issued.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, noting that the test under Rule 48.14 is disjunctive and requires both a reasonable explanation and a lack of non-compensable prejudice.

The action was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding it liable in nuisance, trespass, and negligence for noise and odour emanating from its temporary asphalt plant.

The Superior Court of Justice upheld the finding of liability in nuisance, concluding the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in assessing the severity of the interference or the character of the neighbourhood.

The court also upheld the trial judge's decision to qualify an expert witness employed by an environmental advocacy group, finding her employment did not automatically disqualify her.

However, the court allowed the appeal regarding trespass and negligence, finding that noise and odour are indirect intrusions that do not constitute trespass, and that the respondents suffered no personal injury or property damage compensable in negligence.

The damages award of $14,700 was upheld.