Miles Obradovich

The plaintiffs commenced a medical negligence action alleging improper treatment at a hospital that preceded a stroke suffered by the main plaintiff.

The plaintiffs later sought court approval under Rule 7 to dismiss the action, including the claim of a minor plaintiff, asserting that they were unwilling to fund a necessary neurological expert opinion on causation.

The court scrutinized the request due to the involvement of a minor and the absence of sufficient evidence addressing the merits of the claim.

The judge emphasized that counsel undertaking professional negligence cases on a contingency fee basis must anticipate the risk of funding necessary expert evidence.

Although the court initially refused approval and sought further information, the prolonged inactivity and the plaintiff’s inability to fund expert evidence ultimately justified dismissal of the claim without costs.

In a medical negligence action arising from a colonoscopy preceding the patient’s death from colorectal cancer, the defendant physicians sought an order under Rule 32.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure compelling genetic testing of preserved liver tissue to determine whether the cancer was a hereditary form potentially affecting the applicable standard of care.

The court held that excised human tissue archived by a hospital may constitute personal property capable of inspection and testing under Rule 32.01.

However, the motion was dismissed due to significant procedural and evidentiary deficiencies, including lack of evidence from the proposed testing expert, failure to specify the time, place and manner of inspection, and failure to give notice to the hospital and affected physicians.

The court concluded that although the proposed testing might be useful, the requested relief was procedurally improper and unsupported by adequate evidence.

The insurer appealed an arbitrator's decision awarding the insured person medical benefits and the cost of assessments and reports, arguing the arbitrator erred in law by relying on the evidence of a clinic director with a financial interest in the outcome and poor record-keeping practices.

The insured person cross-appealed the dismissal of claims for translation services and the offsetting of a misdirected payment.

The Director's Delegate found that the arbitrator's findings of fact regarding the medical benefits were supported by the evidence and did not constitute an error of law.

However, the Director's Delegate allowed the appeal in part, finding the arbitrator erred in awarding section 24 expenses for certain reports that served only as advocacy or were prepared after the treatment cut-off date.

The cross-appeal was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits until the insurer terminated them based on a designated assessment centre report.

The applicant applied for arbitration, arguing he suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment as a contract coordinator due to chronic pain syndrome and psychological issues.

The arbitrator found that the applicant was substantially unable to perform his essential tasks, noting that the DAC assessment was flawed and did not adequately consider his psychological issues and pain reactivity.

The insurer was ordered to pay ongoing income replacement benefits, provide an offer for loss of earning capacity benefits, and pay the applicant's arbitration expenses.

The applicant was struck by a motor vehicle as a pedestrian and claimed income replacement benefits, alleging he was self-employed in construction prior to the accident.

The insurer terminated benefits, and the applicant applied for arbitration.

The arbitrator found the applicant's evidence of self-employment unreliable, noting inconsistencies in documentary evidence and contradictory statements made to the Workers' Compensation Board claiming total disability during the same period.

The claim for income replacement benefits was dismissed as the applicant failed to prove he was self-employed in the 156 weeks prior to the accident.

The applicant was struck by a motor vehicle as a pedestrian and claimed statutory accident benefits for an orthopaedic mattress, motorized wheelchair, attendant care, and housekeeping expenses.

The insurer terminated benefits, arguing the applicant's ongoing symptoms were due to a pre-existing dependent personality and inactivity rather than the accident.

The arbitrator found the applicant suffered from reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD) triggered by the accident.

The arbitrator awarded the wheelchair rental cost and ongoing attendant care and housekeeping benefits at a reduced rate (50%), reflecting the applicant's pre-existing reliance on his family, but denied the claim for an orthopaedic mattress.

The appellant father appealed a decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario that overturned a trial judge's order granting him custody of two young children.

The trial judge had found fault in both parents but determined that awarding custody to the father was in the best interests of the children.

The Court of Appeal reversed this decision without detailed reasons, stating only that the trial judge did not consider all proper principles.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that an appellate court should not disturb the factual determinations of a trial judge in a custody case absent a marked deficiency.

The trial judgment was restored.