Lisa Margaret Filgiano

This motion concerned the approval of a settlement for a minor plaintiff, Peter Asimakis, who was exposed to fuel oil vapours as a child.

The Public Guardian and Trustee, acting as Peter's litigation guardian, sought court approval for a $10,000 settlement with the sole remaining defendant, R.B. & R. Cartage Inc. The court granted the motion, finding the settlement to be reasonable, fair, and in the minor's best interests, considering the protracted litigation, disproportionate legal costs, and a legal opinion on damages.

The applicant, Panagiota Aggelakos, sought the appointment of The Canada Trust Company as Guardian of Property for her incapable parents, Nikolaos and Kostadina Aggelakos, due to the respondent, Ioannis Aggelakos's, persistent non-cooperation and failure to abide by a prior settlement agreement.

The respondent, co-attorney with the applicant, opposed the appointment, arguing it was against his parents' wishes and that he intended to cooperate.

The court found that the respondent's lack of cooperation, including failure to open a joint bank account for two years, resulting in significant lost interest income, and his submission of unsworn and late material, created an injustice for the incapable parents.

The court varied the prior settlement and ordered the appointment of The Canada Trust Company as Guardian of Property for both parents.

Following reasons for judgment in a medical malpractice action, the court considered supplementary costs submissions from the plaintiffs seeking recovery for additional expert and transcript expenses incurred after the initial costs materials were delivered.

The defendant argued the supplementary expert evidence was unnecessary due to the plaintiffs’ change in trial strategy.

The court held that litigants may reasonably adjust trial strategy and should not be penalized in costs where services appeared necessary at the time they were obtained.

The court accepted that the supplementary expert report and transcripts used for closing submissions were reasonable litigation expenses.

The plaintiffs were awarded the additional costs sought.

The plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action alleging that a physician performed a surgical procedure without consent during ovarian cyst surgery, resulting in sterilization.

The claim ultimately proceeded solely in battery after the plaintiffs abandoned negligence.

The court held that applying Filshie clips to the left fallopian tube constituted a separate procedure that fell outside the scope of the consent provided, and there was no emergency justifying the step.

General consent language permitting additional procedures during surgery did not authorize a sterilizing intervention where the patient had expressed a desire to preserve fertility.

The physician was therefore liable in battery.

Following dismissal of a motion to amend the statement of claim, the court determined costs.

The successful party sought partial indemnity costs totalling $14,420.17 for preparation, cross‑examination attendance, and the motion hearing.

The opposing party argued the amount was excessive given the simplicity of the motion and the use of two counsel.

Applying s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and the factors under Rule 57.01(1), the court held that the requested amount was fair and reasonable given the complexity arising from the long history of the 22‑year litigation and the volume of material involved.

Costs of $14,420.17 were awarded with 120 days permitted for payment.

The defendant sought leave to amend a statement of defence to withdraw admissions made more than two decades earlier acknowledging the validity of a personal guarantee given in connection with a corporate loan.

The proposed amendment would allow the defendant to assert defences of undue influence, lack of proper independent legal advice, and vulnerability.

The court held that the motion was governed by rule 51.05 of the Rules of Civil Procedure because the amendment effectively sought withdrawal of admissions.

The moving party failed to establish that the amendment raised a triable issue, that the original admissions were inadvertent or based on wrong instructions, or that the withdrawal would not cause prejudice.

Allowing the amendment would also constitute an abuse of process because the defendant had relied on the validity of the guarantee in prior litigation and sworn evidence.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding it partially liable for a customer’s business losses after a mobile device failed to function overseas due to the absence of a SIM card.

The appeal primarily concerned the interpretation and applicability of a limitation of liability clause in the service agreement and whether the trial judge erred in findings relating to gross negligence and mitigation.

The court held that the exclusion clause did not clearly apply to the complete failure of the device to function for its intended purpose and was at best ambiguous, requiring interpretation against the drafting party.

The court also found no reversible error in the trial judge’s credibility findings or assessment of mitigation.

The appeal was dismissed and the damages award upheld.