Stephen A. Mullings

The appellant motorcyclist was rendered paraplegic after colliding with the respondent's recycling truck, which was making a left turn.

A jury found the appellant 100% responsible for the accident.

On appeal, the appellant argued the verdict was unreasonable and that expert evidence was improperly adduced during cross-examination.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the jury's verdict was not so plainly unreasonable that no jury could have reached it, and that the expert evidence elicited on cross-examination was not outside the witnesses' expertise.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to attend independent medical examinations.

The plaintiff did not dispute the right to the examinations but sought to impose several restrictive conditions via a court order, including prohibitions on audio/video recording, questionnaires, and opinions on liability or credibility.

The court declined to impose a standard form order with the plaintiff's proposed terms, noting that many terms were either undisputed or overly broad.

The court ordered the plaintiff to attend the examinations, provided they could be arranged promptly, with reports complying with Rule 53.03(2.1).

The appellant, an orthopaedic surgeon, appealed a trial judgment finding him liable for medical malpractice based on a lack of informed consent.

The respondent suffered permanent sciatic nerve damage (foot drop) following a Ganz pelvic osteotomy, eventually requiring a below-the-knee amputation.

The trial judge found the surgery was performed competently but the appellant failed to adequately disclose the risk of permanent nerve damage, and that a reasonable person in the respondent's position would have refused the surgery if properly informed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's application of the modified objective test for causation or her factual findings regarding the disclosure of risks.