Leslie Wright

Following dismissal of a civil action for battery and negligence against healthcare providers and security personnel, the successful defendants sought costs.

The defendants had previously offered to consent to dismissal of the action without costs prior to trial.

The court held that, as the defendants were completely successful, they were entitled to recover their costs.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis and fixed in a lump sum.

A hospital patient sued a hospital and its security guards for battery after being restrained in the emergency department while a physician issued a Form 1 under the Mental Health Act.

The patient argued the restraint was unlawful and caused a rotator cuff injury.

The court found the restraint caused the injury but concluded the conduct was legally justified under s. 15 of the Mental Health Act because the physician had reasonable grounds to believe the patient’s infection impaired her judgment and placed her at risk of serious bodily harm.

The force used by security was minimal and proportionate to preventing the patient from leaving before urgent surgery.

Because the restraint was authorized by statute, the elements of battery were not established.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave under Rule 31.05.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to continue the examination for discovery of the defendant, his former lawyer, beyond the seven-hour limit.

The underlying action involved allegations of solicitor negligence regarding an improvident settlement of an accident benefits claim.

The court considered the complexity of the issues, the amount in dispute, and the interests of justice, concluding that an additional 2.5 hours of examination was warranted.

The motion was granted, and the defendant was ordered to pay partial indemnity costs.

The appellant, a former director of a condominium corporation, sought a declaration that the respondent insurer had a duty to defend him in an action brought by the corporation.

The application judge dismissed the application, finding the extension of coverage was not triggered and the negligence claim was merely derivative of deliberate conduct.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the effective date for assessing the appellant's knowledge was the start of the successive policy periods, at which time a claim was not reasonably foreseeable.

Furthermore, the negligence claim was independent, triggering the insurer's duty to defend.