Logan Crowell

The applicant widow brought a constitutional challenge against the eligibility criteria for liver transplants, arguing that the requirement for patients with alcohol-related liver disease to demonstrate abstinence or undergo rigorous multidisciplinary screening discriminated against them on the basis of their alcohol use disorder.

The court found that while the estate had standing to bring the claim, the challenge to the historical six-month sobriety rule was moot.

On the merits of the current criteria, the court held there was no violation of sections 15(1), 7, or 12 of the Charter, as the criteria were based on the best available medical evidence to allocate scarce organs to those most likely to have successful outcomes.

The court also found that the living donor program criteria were clinical policies not subject to Charter scrutiny.

The appellants, parents whose children were made Crown wards, appealed the dismissal of their action against multiple defendants involved in the child protection proceedings.

The action was dismissed under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous and vexatious, being an impermissible attempt to relitigate issues already decided.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no error in the lower court's decision that the action constituted an abuse of process.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision declaring that the limitation period for putative class members remained suspended under s. 28(1) of the Class Proceedings Act following the denial of class certification.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 28(1) provides an exhaustive list of circumstances that resume a limitation period, and denial of certification is not among them.

Consequently, the limitation period remains suspended indefinitely following a denial of certification, a result the court noted must be addressed by the Legislature.

The respondents, Trillium Gift of Life Network and University Health Network, brought motions to dismiss and transfer applications challenging the constitutionality of liver transplant waitlist criteria for patients with alcohol-related liver disease.

UHN moved to dismiss the application against it, arguing the Charter did not apply to its clinical decisions.

Trillium moved to transfer the application to the Divisional Court, arguing it involved the review of a statutory power.

The Superior Court dismissed both motions, finding it was not plain and obvious that the Charter did not apply to UHN's adoption of the criteria, and affirming the Superior Court's inherent jurisdiction to grant Charter remedies without bifurcating the proceedings.

Following the dismissal of a motion to certify a class action regarding unreliable hair drug testing at the Motherisk Drug Testing Laboratory, the plaintiff brought a motion under s. 7 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 to continue her action and join approximately 200 co-plaintiffs.

The court held that the limitation periods for the putative class members remain suspended under s. 28 of the Act until the defendants successfully move to dismiss the proceeding without an adjudication on the merits.

The court also held that the test for joining co-plaintiffs under s. 7 is the same as the test under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The motion to join the co-plaintiffs was dismissed without prejudice due to insufficient pleading of material facts.

The court fixed nominal costs against the self-represented plaintiff following successful summary judgment motions by the defendants in a medical negligence action.

Despite the plaintiff's serious health issues and lack of means, the court found that the plaintiff's failure to secure expert reports and refusal to follow former counsel's advice necessitated the summary judgment motions, entitling the defendants to costs.

However, considering the plaintiff's inability to pay and the non-frivolous nature of the initial lawsuit, a nominal award was deemed appropriate.

This medical negligence action, commenced in 2011, involved allegations of negligent treatment by the plaintiff against the defendant hospital and physicians.

The action had been administratively dismissed twice and case-managed since 2018 due to the plaintiff's failure to deliver expert reports.

Despite multiple court orders and extensions, the self-represented plaintiff failed to provide expert evidence on standard of care and causation, which is required to establish negligence.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment, which the court granted, dismissing the action due to the absence of a genuine issue for trial without expert opinions supporting the plaintiff's claims.

The Grand River Hospital brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss the plaintiff's medical malpractice claim against it.

The plaintiff, self-represented, relied on an American orthopedic surgeon's expert report.

The court found the plaintiff's expert was not qualified to opine on Canadian hospital procedures or nursing/physiotherapy standards, and his report primarily attributed negligence to the doctors, not the hospital.

The expert failed to establish a causal link between alleged hospital failures and the plaintiff's injuries.

The plaintiff's complaints regarding customer service or minor issues without resulting harm were deemed insufficient to raise a triable issue of medical malpractice against the hospital.

The motion was granted, and the action against Grand River Hospital was dismissed with costs, while the action against the doctors continued.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her motion to certify a class action against the Hospital for Sick Children and others regarding the systemic negligence of the Motherisk Drug Testing Laboratory.

The motions judge had found that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure because resolving the common issues of systemic negligence would not significantly advance the individual class members' claims, which required highly individualized proof of causation and damages.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error in the motions judge's discretionary balancing of the preferable procedure factors.

The Plaintiffs in a medical negligence action brought a motion seeking leave to admit an expert's affidavit and discovery transcripts of two family members (one deceased, one unwell) into evidence at trial.

The court dismissed the request to admit the expert's affidavit, finding it did not comply with Rule 53 requirements for expert reports and would unfairly deprive the defence of cross-examination.

However, the court granted leave to admit the discovery transcripts of the family members under Rule 31.11(6), subject to the Plaintiffs immediately quantifying their Family Law Act claims and providing the family doctor's notes for the relevant period to the defence, to ensure fairness given the inability of the family members to testify.

The defendants, Dr. L., Dr. S., and Hospital A, brought motions to strike portions of the plaintiffs' statement of claim, for partial summary judgment, and to bifurcate the trial in a medical malpractice action.

The plaintiffs alleged negligence and breach of fiduciary duty by Dr. L. for treating J.O. despite knowing or ought to have known of her incompetence, and for failing to disclose past medical errors and complaints.

The court partially granted the motion to strike, removing allegations of failing to disclose general information and past medical errors/complaints to the College of Physicians and Surgeons, but allowed claims of negligence and breach of fiduciary duty based on Dr. L.'s knowledge of her own deficiencies to proceed.

The motions for partial summary judgment and bifurcation were dismissed.

The court also ordered J.O. to provide consent for police records related to a Family Law Act claim.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code from a disposition order of the Ontario Review Board.

The appellant was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder for arson and failure to comply with a probation order.

The Board ordered continued detention on the general forensic unit of Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, alternatively a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's refusal of an absolute discharge but found the Board's reasoning for refusing a conditional discharge was unreasonable and remitted the matter for reconsideration of whether a conditional discharge was appropriate.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that found him to remain a significant threat to public safety and ordered a conditional discharge with reporting and drug testing requirements.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for assault with a weapon in 2007, sought an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's disposition, finding that the Board's conclusion that the appellant would likely discontinue antipsychotic medication, increase cannabis use, and decompensate into psychosis was supported by evidence, including the appellant's lack of insight into his need for medication and his history of drug use.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition dated May 1, 2017, which ordered her detained at the General Forensic Service of Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences, though with discretion for the person in charge to permit community living.

The appellant challenged the Board's constitution, arguing the Chairperson did not meet statutory qualification requirements, and contested the Board's use of victim impact statements and its finding that the appellant posed a significant threat to the community.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no improper constitution of the Board, no improper use of victim impact statements, and that the Board's findings were supported by evidence and joint counsel recommendation.

A self-represented litigant appealed eight decisions from the Superior Court of Justice dismissing his actions as frivolous and vexatious under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and a vexatious litigant designation under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellant's claims related to complaints about interactions with government agencies, law enforcement, and mental health and medical personnel spanning multiple years and incidents.

The Court of Appeal upheld all dismissals, finding the pleadings fell far short of procedural requirements, failed to advance any justiciable cause of action, and exhibited hallmarks of vexatious proceedings including rambling discourse, grandiose damage claims, and repetitious allegations across multiple proceedings.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that detained him at the Secure Forensic Service of Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences with restricted privileges.

The appellant advanced two grounds of appeal: that the Board's finding of significant threat to public safety was unreasonable, and that the Board erred in law by failing to apply section 14 of the Evidence Act regarding corroboration.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both grounds, finding ample evidence supported the significant threat threshold and that section 14 of the Evidence Act does not apply to Review Board proceedings as they fall under federal jurisdiction.

The appellant's collateral Charter application regarding medication was also dismissed as not cognizable on appeal.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner order requiring the disclosure of commercial benchmarking data provided to the Treasury Board Secretariat.

The applicant argued the adjudicator misapprehended evidence and applied too high a standard of proof for the third-party records exemption under s. 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the adjudicator reasonably concluded the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of probable harm to its competitive position if the redacted information was disclosed.

The plaintiff moved to certify a proposed class action arising from allegedly unreliable Motherisk hair-strand drug and alcohol testing used in child protection, family, and criminal proceedings.

The court held that while the pleading disclosed a cause of action and there was evidence of a broad group of potentially affected persons, the proposed proceeding failed on common issues, preferable procedure, and representative plaintiff criteria.

The court found the alleged systemic negligence did not materially advance the class members' real claims because compensable harm depended on highly individualized proof that a particular test result was false and adversely influenced a particular proceeding.

The litigation plan for individual hearings was found unworkable and procedurally unfair.

Certification was refused.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition dated December 21, 2016, which ordered his continued detention in maximum security at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The appellant had previously been detained at Ontario Shores with community privileges.

He advanced two grounds of appeal: first, that the Board misapprehended evidence regarding when he decompensated after being moved to the minimum-security unit; and second, that the Board failed to address the impact of a medication change on his behaviour.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no misapprehension of evidence and confirming that the Board was aware of and properly considered the medication change in its decision.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his Small Claims Court medical negligence action.

He argued that the deputy judge erred by presiding over a motion to dismiss under Rule 12.02 after having presided over a settlement conference in the same matter, relying on the Court of Appeal's decision in Hussain regarding summary judgment motions.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding that a Rule 12.02 motion is not analogous to a summary judgment motion and that the Small Claims Court Rules grant broad powers to dismiss unmeritorious claims, particularly where the appellant failed to provide required expert reports.