Alexandre Blanchard

The appellant appealed the summary dismissal of a medical malpractice action arising from the death of his common law spouse from terminal brain cancer.

The appellant alleged that the defendant physicians breached the standard of care by terminating the drug dexamethasone without tapering and by failing to obtain informed consent.

The motion judge dismissed the action after finding that the appellant's expert evidence was insufficient to establish a genuine issue requiring trial.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the appellant failed to provide qualified expert evidence on standard of care and causation, and that the evidence supported informed consent had been obtained.

The plaintiff brought a medical malpractice claim against several physician and hospital defendants following the death of his common-law spouse from aggressive brain cancer.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing a lack of expert evidence to establish professional negligence and causation, and that the duty to obtain informed consent rested with the physicians, not the hospital pharmacies.

The court granted summary judgment, dismissing the action, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial as the plaintiff's expert evidence was insufficient and causation was not established.

Following a successful summary judgment motion dismissing the plaintiff's action, the Eckhaus Defendants sought substantial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff had made serious, unfounded allegations of breach of fiduciary duty and sexual harassment against Dr. Eckhaus.

The court found these allegations to be outrageous and reckless, justifying an award of substantial indemnity costs.

After reviewing the parties' bills of costs and considering proportionality, complexity, and importance, the court fixed the costs payable by the plaintiff to the Eckhaus Defendants at $45,645.60, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The plaintiff, a registered nurse who underwent massive weight loss, sued her plastic surgeon, his professional corporation, a hospital, and a nurse after the nurse asked an allegedly inappropriate question during surgery while the plaintiff was awake.

The surgeon and his corporation moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action against them.

The court applied the Hryniak test and reviewed the plaintiff's own expert report, which established that the surgeon met the standard of care for preoperative, technical, and postoperative care.

The court found that the surgeon also met the subjective standard of care for intraoperative management and patient advocacy, as he did not perceive the question as derogatory or know the plaintiff felt insulted at the time.

Finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, the court granted the motion and dismissed the action against the surgeon and his corporation.

The applicants sought judicial review of interim decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which declined to dismiss human rights applications under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicants argued that prior proceedings under the Police Services Act and the Regulated Health Professions Act should bar the human rights complaints based on issue estoppel and finality principles.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding the Tribunal reasonably applied the Supreme Court's fairness principles from Penner to conclude that it would be unfair to dismiss the human rights applications, given the different purposes, lack of financial stakes, and statutory contexts of the prior proceedings.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers finding him guilty of professional misconduct for engaging in an inappropriate sexual relationship with a student.

The appellant argued that the Panel disregarded evidence, failed to resolve inconsistencies, and improperly drew an adverse inference from his refusal to answer questions during the investigation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Panel's findings of fact and credibility were entitled to considerable deference and were reasonably supported by the evidence.