Lori Stoltz

The applicants challenged the constitutionality of the Canadian prison needle exchange program (PNEP), specifically its "threat risk assessment" (TRA) feature, arguing it violated sections 7 and 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by denying effective access to essential health care.

The court dismissed the application, finding it premature due to the ongoing PNEP rollout and evolving design.

Furthermore, the applicants failed to establish that professionally accepted standards required a health services-centered model without security staff involvement, or that the PNEP/TRA model breached Charter rights by being arbitrary, overbroad, or grossly disproportionate, or by discriminating on enumerated grounds.

The respondents in a Charter application brought a refusals motion seeking to compel three expert witnesses retained by the applicants to re-attend cross-examinations and produce draft affidavits and notes of communications with counsel.

The respondents argued that counsel's assistance in drafting the experts' affidavits raised reasonable grounds to question their independence, thereby waiving litigation privilege.

The court applied the principles from Moore v. Getahun and White Burgess, finding that consultation between counsel and experts is a necessary part of the adversarial process.

The court dismissed the motion, concluding there was no factual foundation to support a reasonable suspicion that counsel improperly influenced the experts.

The plaintiffs brought a medical negligence action against the defendant obstetrician following the birth of a child who suffered a catastrophic brain injury resulting in severe cerebral palsy.

The injury was caused by an occult cord prolapse during delivery.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendant failed to recognize risk factors, failed to obtain informed consent, and negligently proceeded with a vacuum-assisted delivery in the delivery room rather than the operating room.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the defendant met the standard of care in his assessment of risk factors, obtained valid consent, and appropriately exercised his clinical judgment in proceeding with the vacuum in response to a non-reassuring fetal heart rate.

Furthermore, the court found that the cord prolapse and resulting injury would have occurred regardless of the defendant's interventions.

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.

The plaintiffs, Tim Hortons franchisees, brought a proposed class action against the franchisor alleging breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and breaches of the Competition Act.

The claims centered on the franchisor's requirement that franchisees purchase par-baked donuts and Lunch Menu ingredients at allegedly commercially unreasonable prices.

The franchisor moved for summary judgment.

The court granted summary judgment dismissing all claims, finding that the franchisor had the contractual right to require the purchases and set the prices, and that there was no breach of the duty of good faith or the Competition Act.

The certification motion was therefore moot, though the court indicated it would have certified certain common issues had the claims survived.