Lisa Spiegel

This endorsement addresses a proposed consent order for a class action settlement between the plaintiff and the Sault Area Hospital.

The court convened a teleconference to ensure the order allowed for consideration of written objections from class members.

The order mandates the hospital to provide class member information, followed by notice distribution and a 30-day period for objections.

The court found the proposed settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, weighing the claim's nature, litigation risks and costs, class size, and potential recoveries, with reference to *Jones v. Tsige*.

The order is to take effect 90 days after being made, unless a written objection necessitates a settlement hearing.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action for defamation and misfeasance in public office, the successful defendants sought their costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The court applied the principles from Apotex and Rule 57.01, noting the serious allegations made, the complexity of the 10-year litigation, and the plaintiff's reasonable expectations.

The court found the defendants' reduced costs requests to be fair and reasonable, ordering the plaintiff to pay $280,000 to one defendant and $250,000 to the remaining defendants.

The plaintiff, a general surgeon, sued the hospital, its chief executive officer, and its chief of staff for defamation and misfeasance in public office after losing his hospital privileges.

The plaintiff alleged that the chief of staff defamed him in a letter and in oral statements, and that the defendants acted in bad faith to oust him from the hospital.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the oral defamatory statements were not proven and that the letter was protected by qualified privilege.

The court held it had jurisdiction to hear the misfeasance claim but dismissed it, finding no evidence of unlawful acts, malice, or improper purpose by the defendants.

The action was dismissed in its entirety.

A case conference was held after a scheduled 10-day trial was adjourned due to a lack of judicial resources.

The defendant hospital sought leave to bring motions for partial summary judgment and security for costs.

The court denied leave for the summary judgment motion, noting it should have been brought before the action was set down for trial, and directed that any motion for security for costs proceed through regular channels rather than on an urgent basis.

The court also ordered further discovery on the plaintiff's loss of income claim and directed counsel to select a trial date in 2022, emphasizing the unacceptability of further delaying a 10-year-old case.

The plaintiff physician brought an action against the defendant hospital and individuals for damages arising from a de facto suspension of his hospital privileges and alleged breach of a prior settlement agreement.

The defendants moved to strike the claim for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the plaintiff had not exhausted his remedies under the Public Hospitals Act (PHA), and on grounds of res judicata and abuse of process.

The court found that while the action was premature because the plaintiff had not exhausted his PHA remedies regarding the de facto suspension, the appropriate remedy was to stay the action rather than strike it.

The court dismissed the defendants' arguments on res judicata and abuse of process, but struck certain paragraphs of the statement of claim that made unfounded attacks on the hospital's legal counsel, with leave to amend.

The Plaintiff brought a motion for directions regarding the continuation of the cross-examination of a Defendant, Dr. Fenton, on his affidavits.

The cross-examination was terminated by the Plaintiff due to alleged persistent interruptions and interference by Defence counsel.

The Plaintiff sought orders for Dr. Fenton to re-attend, for the examination to be video-recorded, and for specific rules of conduct for Defence counsel, along with costs.

The Defendants argued the cross-examination was properly ended and sought costs.

The court found Defence counsel's repetitive commentary obstructive, justifying the termination.

It ordered the continuation of the cross-examination with strict rules for counsel's objections and awarded costs to the Plaintiff.

However, the request for video recording was denied, as it is an exception under the Rules of Civil Procedure and not justified by the circumstances.

This decision addresses costs arising from a motion concerning discovery refusals.

The plaintiffs sought answers to 13 questions, succeeding on 3.

The court found success on the motion to be divided and, in the absence of settlement offers, ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The court also clarified that allegations of improper conduct by plaintiffs' counsel, not being determinative of the motion's outcome, would not influence the costs award.

The plaintiffs in a medical malpractice action brought a motion to compel the defendant physician to answer questions refused at her examination for discovery and to re-attend to answer follow-up questions.

The court held that written answers provided by the defendant to some of the refused questions were complete and did not necessitate re-attendance.

However, the court ordered the defendant to provide written answers to questions regarding post-event changes to her charting and diagnostic practices, finding that evidence of subsequent remedial measures is relevant at the discovery stage.

The defendant was also ordered to answer questions regarding conversations with a colleague about the incident.