Mary Lynn Gleason

Following a 42-day medical negligence trial where damages were agreed at $12 million, the plaintiffs sought costs of over $4.5 million.

The court considered the complexity of the case, the high hourly rates of senior counsel, and the defendants' stout denial of liability.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $4,218,052.00 in partial indemnity costs and disbursements, payable two-thirds by the unsuccessful physicians and one-third by the hospital.

The court declined to make a Sanderson Order, instead ordering the plaintiffs to pay $250,000 in costs to the two successful defendant physicians.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for approval of a $9,750,000 settlement in a medical malpractice action arising from severe birth injuries sustained by the minor plaintiff.

The court reviewed the proposed distribution, including damages, costs, and legal fees calculated under a Contingent Fee Agreement.

Finding the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the minor plaintiff, and the reduced contingency fee of 27.5% appropriate, the court approved the settlement and the related guardianship application.

The plaintiff suffered a cardiac arrest and anoxic brain injury during an urgent caesarean section.

The plaintiffs sued the treating obstetricians, anesthesiologist, and the hospital for medical negligence.

The court found the initial obstetrician negligent for failing to diagnose the pregnancy early, failing to discuss termination, and failing to document severe risk factors associated with the plaintiff's morbid obesity.

The anesthesiologist was found negligent for prematurely converting to a general anesthetic and failing to adequately manage the airway, directly causing the cardiac arrest.

The hospital was found vicariously liable for a triage nurse's failure to follow protocols during a telephone call.

Liability was apportioned equally among the three negligent defendants.

The plaintiffs in a long-standing medical malpractice action sought an adjournment of an 8-week jury trial, scheduled to commence April 15, 2019, due to a recent breakdown in counsel-client relationship and subsequent change of solicitors.

The defendants opposed the adjournment, emphasizing the age of the action, extensive trial preparation, and the significant delay a new trial date would entail.

The court, while expressing reluctance and noting that the change of counsel at the eleventh hour did not constitute an "exceptional circumstance" under the Toronto practice direction, ultimately granted the adjournment on terms.

This decision was influenced by the complexity of the medical negligence case and the involvement of a party under disability, necessitating new counsel sufficient time to review the file and address critical issues like Medicare and Medicaid.

The plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action against several physicians and a hospital following the death of their newborn son.

The infant died from complications related to a rare congenital condition, anal stenosis, which was not diagnosed prior to his death.

The court found that the defendant physicians met the standard of care expected of general practitioners, as the condition was not externally visible and the infant did not present with symptoms warranting an urgent referral during their examinations.

The action was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after being permanently deferred from donating stem cells by Canadian Blood Services (CBS).

CBS brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that stem cell donor screening falls under federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the federal government has constitutional authority to regulate stem cell donations under its criminal law and POGG powers.

Applying the doctrine of paramountcy, the Tribunal concluded that applying provincial human rights legislation to federally-regulated donor selection criteria would frustrate the federal purpose of maintaining a safe, national stem cell transplant system.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The defendant bank sought leave to appeal a decision certifying a class action for unpaid overtime on behalf of its retail branch employees.

The bank argued that the certification decision conflicted with another recent decision denying certification in a similar overtime class action against a different bank, and that there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the decision.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on both grounds, finding a clear conflict in principle regarding whether systemic duties and implied contractual terms could overcome a lack of commonality, and noting the general public importance of the issues raised.

The union applied for certification for full-time and part-time employees of the respondent hotel.

The Board addressed two preliminary matters: a request by objecting employees to extend the terminal date because their petition was stolen, and a motion by the union to dismiss the employer's allegation that a union organizer offered kickbacks during a previous campaign.

The Board refused to extend the terminal date, finding the petitioners did not exercise sufficient caution with the document.

The Board also dismissed the kickback allegation without a hearing, ruling that alleged misconduct in a prior campaign could not taint fresh membership evidence in the current campaign.

The part-time certification application was dismissed for insufficient support, while the full-time application was deferred pending resolution of remaining disputes.