Gordon Slemko

The plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice and wrongful death action against an emergency room physician, two nurses, and a hospital following the sudden death of a 40-year-old woman from an acute aortic dissection.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants breached the standard of care by failing to diagnose the condition, failing to order a CT angiogram, and failing to refer the patient to a specialist in a timely manner.

The plaintiffs also alleged that the medical records were falsified and that the defendants' care was compromised by anti-Black racism and sexism.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the physician and nurses met the applicable standards of care.

The court held that the patient presented with symptoms consistent with more common conditions like acute coronary syndrome, and that the physician's investigative approach was appropriate.

The court also found no evidence of record falsification or discriminatory conduct.

During a medical negligence trial, the plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the evidence of the defendant doctor's emergency medicine expert.

The plaintiffs alleged the expert was biased because his spouse, also a physician, had privileges at the defendant hospital.

The court applied the Mohan and White Burgess framework and found no disqualifying bias, noting the expert's opinion was formed before his spouse obtained privileges and he had no relationship with the defendants.

The motion to strike the expert evidence was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought medical negligence claims against numerous physicians and a hospital following the death of a patient from an acute aortic dissection.

Seven of the defendant physicians moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiffs failed to produce expert evidence establishing the applicable standard of care, breach, and causation.

The court granted the summary judgment motions, finding that the plaintiffs' expert reports did not establish the essential elements of negligence against the moving defendants, and that this was not a clear case where expert evidence could be dispensed with.

The court also granted the plaintiffs' counter-motion to consolidate the actions and serve a jury notice, but dismissed their request for production of original hospital records, as those records had been destroyed in accordance with hospital policy after being digitized.

The appellant hospital appealed an order declaring that the respondent and other 'Annual Members' held their memberships for a full 12-month period and compelling the hospital to hold a requisitioned special meeting.

The hospital argued that under its by-laws, annual memberships expired on July 31 regardless of when they were approved, which in practice resulted in terms of only a few months.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that the hospital's interpretation was unreasonable and unfair, and that 'annual' should be given its plain meaning of a full 12-month term to ensure members could effectively act as a check on the board of directors.

The Health Professions Appeal and Review Board brought a motion to file portions of the record in a sealed form pending a judicial review application by a physician.

The physician sought judicial review of the Board's decisions affirming cautions against him, arguing the Board failed to make full disclosure of the materials it relied upon.

The court granted the motion, finding that unsealing the records prematurely would render the judicial review application moot, as the right to keep the information secret was the very issue to be determined by the full panel.

The applicants sought an order in the nature of certiorari to quash the appointment of an investigator by the College of Physiotherapists of Ontario to examine their practices, and a stay of the investigations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, noting the well-established rule against piecemeal judicial review of administrative action absent exceptional circumstances.

The court held that the administrative proceedings should run their full course before judicial intervention.

The applicant sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an Order to Pay against her former employer.

The applicant, a dental hygienist, alleged she was terminated for exercising her right to pregnancy and parental leave.

While on leave, the applicant requested to return to work for three days a week instead of her previous four.

The employer attempted to accommodate this request but could not offer the specific days the applicant wanted.

When the applicant subsequently requested to extend her leave, the employer terminated her employment.

The Board found that while the employer did not breach the reinstatement provisions, the decision to terminate was at least partially motivated by the applicant's request to extend her leave, violating section 44 of the Employment Standards Act.

The employer was ordered to pay $19,122.00 in damages for lost wages and loss of job.