Allison Spiegel

The self-represented appellants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Centa J. dated February 26, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The respondents brought a medical malpractice action after the plaintiff suffered a severe brain injury from a cardiac arrest during a caesarean section.

The trial judge found the primary obstetrician (Dr. Padmore), the anesthesiologist (Dr. Jamensky), and the hospital liable for negligence.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeals of Dr. Padmore and the hospital, finding the trial judge erred in his legal causation analysis regarding their respective pre-delivery acts and omissions.

The Court dismissed Dr. Jamensky's appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that he breached the standard of care by prematurely converting the patient to a general anesthetic and that this negligence caused the cardiac arrest.

Dr. Jamensky was held solely liable for the agreed $12 million in damages.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's action in its entirety without costs under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The defendant, TD Canada Trust, initiated a request for dismissal.

The self-represented plaintiff, despite multiple opportunities, failed to file proper submissions in response to the court's notice regarding the potential dismissal of his action, which was found to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process with no legitimate cause of action.

The defendant, TD Canada Trust, requested an administrative dismissal of the plaintiff's action under Rule 2.1.01, arguing it was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court found the plaintiff's statement of claim to have significant deficiencies and hallmarks of frivolous litigation.

However, recognizing that dismissal under Rule 2.1.01 is a "blunt instrument" and considering the plaintiff is self-represented, the court declined to dismiss the action immediately.

Instead, it directed a process for the self-represented plaintiff to file written submissions, followed by responses from the defendants, before a final determination on whether to dismiss the action in its entirety.

The action was stayed pending this process.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant from the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application.

The application seeks to increase the height of an under-construction mixed-use building by 9 storeys.

The Tribunal granted party status on consent to several adjacent property owners and local residents' associations.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to finalize the procedural order and issues list.