Lorenzo Girones

The infant plaintiff suffered a severe and permanent brachial plexus injury during birth after encountering shoulder dystocia.

The plaintiffs brought a medical negligence action against the delivering obstetrician, alleging he applied excessive downward traction.

The defendant argued the injury was caused by maternal propulsive forces.

The court found that the defendant breached the standard of care by applying more than gentle downward traction, which caused the injury.

The court awarded $811,564 in total damages, including non-pecuniary damages, future care costs, future loss of income, and Family Law Act damages for the family.

The defendant municipality brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident, arguing the plaintiff failed to provide written notice within 10 days as required by section 44(10) of the Municipal Act.

The plaintiff argued the notice provision was of no force and effect, that notice was not required after 10 days, and that the discoverability principle delayed the start of the notice period.

The court rejected these arguments, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a reasonable excuse for the want of notice under section 44(12).

The action against the municipality was dismissed.

In a medical negligence trial arising from a compromised birth, the plaintiffs alleged that labour and delivery nurses failed to meet obstetrical monitoring standards before a severe bradycardic event.

The court found that active labour had begun by at least 18:00, requiring half-hourly auscultation, and held the nursing care fell below the standard by failing to monitor appropriately, verify concerning findings, and escalate monitoring.

On causation, the court preferred expert evidence that a prolonged partial hypoxic-ischemic process likely developed before 21:00 and would probably have been detected with proper surveillance.

The court concluded earlier intervention would likely have prevented or substantially reduced the neurological injury.

The hospital was found liable, with damages previously admitted subject to approval.

The applicant trade union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The respondent employer requested a revision of the geographic boundaries of Board area #19, which the Board declined to do without broader consultation.

The Board also resolved several disputes regarding the composition of the bargaining unit, finding that three individuals exercised managerial functions and were excluded, while determining the status of others as labourers or operators.

As the union's membership evidence demonstrated support of not less than forty-five per cent but not enough for automatic certification, the Board ordered a representation vote.

The applicant trade union sought a related employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act against three construction companies.

The respondents raised a preliminary objection that section 1(4) violates the guarantee of freedom of association under section 2(d) of the Charter.

The Board dismissed the constitutional challenge, finding that section 1(4) protects rather than infringes freedom of association by preserving existing bargaining rights.

On the merits, the Board applied the Walters Lithographing criteria and found that the three companies carried on associated or related activities under common control or direction.

The Board declared the companies bound by the collective agreement and ordered remedies for unfair labour practices.

The applicant union sought relief under sections 1(4), 63, and 124 of the Labour Relations Act.

Local 800 sought status to intervene based on a maintenance agreement with the respondent employer.

The Board found that the maintenance agreement was signed when there were no employees at work and Local 800 did not subsequently supply members of its own union for all covered trades, constituting employer support under section 48(a) of the Act.

Consequently, the agreement was not a valid collective agreement, and Local 800 was denied status to intervene.

Local 800 and the respondents requested an adjournment to challenge the ruling in court.

The Board denied the adjournment, finding that the balance of convenience favoured continuing the proceedings to avoid prejudice to the applicant.