Matthew Peter Sammon

The appellant physician appealed a trial judgment finding her negligent for failing to recognize a previable, prelabour, preterm rupture of membranes, which led to the respondent suffering septic shock and catastrophic injuries.

The appellant challenged the causation findings, arguing they were based on speculation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's robust and pragmatic approach to causation, which properly relied on expert evidence to conclude that timely referral to an obstetrician would have led to the termination of the pregnancy and avoided the injuries.

The appellant vendor breached agreements of purchase and sale for two development properties.

The trial judge awarded the respondent purchaser $15.5 million in damages based on lost development profits, rejecting the appellant's argument that damages should be limited to the difference between the contract price and the resale price to a third party.

The trial judge also found the respondent did not fail to mitigate its damages when its affiliates purchased other properties.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge did not err in accepting the lost development profits approach endorsed by both parties' experts, as it appropriately measured the specific economic opportunity lost.

The Court also upheld the finding that the affiliates' purchases were independent transactions that did not mitigate the loss.

The applicant mother sought full indemnity costs of $9,808 after successfully bringing a motion regarding the respondent father's repeated breaches of a final parenting order.

The father argued the mother behaved unreasonably and cited his inability to pay.

The court found the father engaged in bad faith conduct by deliberately breaching the order shortly after signing Minutes of Settlement.

Considering the father's bad faith, the complexity of the motion, and his financial challenges, the court awarded the mother fixed costs of $8,000, payable in monthly installments.

The moving parties (plaintiffs) brought a motion to quash the responding parties' appeal of an order adding them as defendants in a medical malpractice action.

The moving parties argued the order was interlocutory and should be appealed to the Divisional Court.

The responding parties argued the order was final because it definitively dismissed their limitation period defence.

The Court of Appeal held that the motion judge's findings regarding the limitation period were preliminary and did not preclude the responding parties from pleading the defence at trial.

Consequently, the order was interlocutory, the appeal was quashed, and the matter was transferred to the Divisional Court.

The applicant mother brought a motion under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules alleging the respondent father breached a Final Parenting Order regarding joint decision-making, extracurricular activities, and section 7 expenses.

The court found the father deliberately bypassed the mother on dental care, refused to engage on educational decisions, failed to take the child to agreed-upon extracurricular activities, and failed to pay his proportionate share of special expenses.

The court granted the motion and issued a Temporary Order with specific terms to facilitate compliance and directed enforcement of expenses through the Family Responsibility Office.

A medical malpractice action arising from the failure of three emergency physicians to diagnose previable, prelabour, preterm rupture of membranes (pPPROM) at 17 weeks gestation and to refer the plaintiff to an obstetrician.

The plaintiff presented to three different emergency departments over four days with a "gush of fluid" and other symptoms consistent with ruptured membranes.

All three physicians diagnosed threatened miscarriage or second trimester bleeding instead.

The failure to diagnose and refer resulted in a delay of approximately one day before the plaintiff reached a tertiary hospital.

During that delay, the plaintiff developed septic shock, leading to amputation of her left leg below the knee, partial amputation of her right foot, kidney failure requiring transplant, stroke, compromised right arm function, and seizures.

The trial judge found that all three defendants breached the standard of care by failing to diagnose the rupture of membranes and failing to immediately refer to an obstetrician.

However, only the first defendant (Dr. Cavanagh) was found liable for damages, as the evidence established that if the plaintiff had been referred on May 4, she would have been seen by an obstetrician, counselled regarding the grave risks, and would have elected to terminate the pregnancy.

Antibiotics and termination by May 5 would have prevented the septic shock and resulting injuries.

The subsequent physicians' breaches occurred too late to prevent the harm.

The court considered a motion by the defendants for production of video and audio recordings from the plaintiffs’ in-home camera system in a medical malpractice action.

The court found that while such recordings may be relevant to the issues in dispute, the plaintiffs’ privacy interests in their home are paramount and outweigh the need for production.

The motion for production was dismissed.

In a Commercial List dispute arising from a light rail transit project, the applicants sought declaratory relief alleging that the respondents breached a project agreement by entering into an operator agreement with the transit operator on terms inconsistent with the project agreement.

The respondents moved to stay the application based on release and arbitration provisions in earlier Minutes of Settlement, while the applicants moved for production of an unredacted copy of the operator agreement.

Applying the stay framework from Peace River, the court held the respondents failed to show even an arguable case that the dispute was caught by the settlement arbitration clause, because the alleged actionable wrong did not arise until the operator agreement was executed after the settlement effective date.

The court also ordered production of the complete unredacted agreement, finding it central to the issues and that the respondents had adduced no evidence capable of justifying redactions for confidentiality or commercial sensitivity.

Costs of $90,000 partial indemnity were awarded to the applicants.

The plaintiff, having partially succeeded in her wrongful dismissal action, sought costs.

The defendant argued its earlier offer to settle engaged Rule 49.10, entitling it to costs from the offer date.

The court found the defendant's offer did not trigger Rule 49.10 due to an uncertain release condition, following D'Anscenzo v. Nichols.

Despite divided success, the plaintiff was deemed the successful party.

However, due to significant divided success (failure to prove damages for loss of book of business) and the plaintiff's rejection of a near-mirror offer, her costs were significantly reduced.

The court awarded the plaintiff 30% of her partial indemnity costs, totaling $72,000.00.

The plaintiff developer entered into agreements of purchase and sale with the defendant for commercial properties, which included a mutual lease condition for a leaseback arrangement.

As the condition deadline approached, the defendant assured the plaintiff it would continue negotiating the leases but secretly sought board approval to sell the properties to a third party.

The defendant then terminated the agreements.

The court found the defendant breached its duty of good faith and honest performance, and was liable for negligent misrepresentation.

Applying promissory estoppel, the court held the defendant could not rely on its strict contractual rights to terminate.

The plaintiff was awarded $15.5 million in damages for lost profits.

The plaintiff, a senior executive at RBC, was dismissed following an investigation into his financial dealings with a subordinate.

He sued for wrongful dismissal, claiming entitlement to 24 months' reasonable notice under Ontario common law.

RBC argued the employment contract was governed by UK law, which limited notice to 12 weeks, and alternatively pleaded after-acquired cause based on the plaintiff's dishonesty during the investigation.

The court held that UK law governed the contract and the plaintiff had received his contractual notice.

Furthermore, the court found that RBC had established after-acquired cause because the plaintiff deliberately withheld material information about his real estate investments with the subordinate during the investigation.

The plaintiff's claim was dismissed, save for unpaid vested compensation, and RBC's counterclaim for mistaken tax overpayments was allowed.

The plaintiff, a 54-year-old investment advisor with 24 years of service, was dismissed without cause.

During discovery, the defendant learned the plaintiff had copied confidential client emails to a personal USB key and alleged after-acquired cause.

The court found the misconduct was a lapse in judgment that did not warrant dismissal.

The court awarded a 24-month notice period and damages for lost commissions.

However, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims for damages for the lost opportunity to sell her book of business, finding she failed to prove she would have retired and sold it during the notice period, and dismissed her claim for bad faith damages.

The applicant, a residual beneficiary of an estate, brought an application against the estate trustees (respondents) alleging mismanagement.

The claims included undue delay in selling the estate house, improper handling of a joint bank account, misdirection of life insurance proceeds, and premature taking of executor compensation.

The court dismissed the applicant's claims regarding occupation rent, the joint bank account, and the life insurance proceeds, finding insufficient evidence for the rent claim, no specific impropriety with the bank account, and that the presumption of resulting trust for the life insurance was rebutted.

While noting the irregular prepayment of executor compensation, the court directed the respondents to formally pass accounts to determine the proper amount.

The appellant, a former bank executive, appealed a decision dismissing his motion to amend his wrongful dismissal statement of claim.

He sought to add a $10 million claim for unjust enrichment and disgorgement, arguing the employer profited from retaining his unpaid compensation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the proposed amendment legally untenable.

The court held there was no corresponding deprivation to the employer's enrichment, as the appellant's loss was limited to the time value of money, which is adequately addressed by the interest provisions in the Courts of Justice Act.

The Respondent father sought orders for additional summer parenting time, delivery of a canoe, Annika's iPhone password, and adjustment of child support payments.

The court dismissed the requests for expanded parenting time and travel, emphasizing the children's best interests and the principle against varying interim orders without a substantial change in circumstances.

The child support issue was resolved by consent, reducing the father's payments.

The canoe and password issues were also resolved by agreement.

The court noted the extensive litigation history and urged the parties to proceed to trial.

The responding parties brought an application seeking declaratory relief regarding the moving parties' alleged failure to retain an operator for a light rail transit project.

The moving parties brought a motion to stay the application in favour of arbitration, relying on a dispute resolution clause in prior Minutes of Settlement.

The court granted the stay, applying the competence-competence principle and finding that the moving parties established an arguable case that the dispute fell within the arbitration agreement.

The court also found no undue delay by the moving parties in seeking the stay.

The respondent/moving party, Mr. Godin, brought an interim motion to terminate spousal support payable to the applicant/responding party, Ms. Vesters.

Ms. Vesters argued that the issues required a full hearing and could not be determined solely on a written record.

The court dismissed the interim motion, finding insufficient evidence to determine the appropriate relief, particularly regarding Mr. Godin's retirement, Ms. Vesters' earning capacity, and the valuation of pensions to address "double-dipping" concerns.

A full hearing was deemed necessary.

This endorsement addresses the quantum of costs following a successful application by Costco Wholesale Corporation to enforce arbitral awards and a U.S. judgment on costs against TicketOps Corporation.

Costco sought $65,000 on a partial indemnity basis, while TicketOps proposed $50,000 plus HST.

The court, considering factors under Rule 57.01, found that while the time spent by Costco's counsel was not disputed, the hourly rates of some junior lawyers were higher than reasonably expected.

The court awarded Costco $60,000 on a partial indemnity basis, deeming it a fair and reasonable amount within the parties' reasonable expectations.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful motion by the Respondent to increase parenting time.

The Respondent sought substantial indemnity costs of $9,000, alleging unreasonable behaviour by the Applicant in refusing to negotiate and ignoring communications.

The Applicant argued the docketed time was excessive and that a punitive costs order was unwarranted, proposing $3,312 plus HST.

The court found that punitive costs were not appropriate as the conduct was not egregious and Rule 18 did not apply.

The court awarded the Respondent $4,000 plus HST in partial indemnity costs, finding the total time spent by the Respondent was higher than reasonably anticipated by the Applicant.

Costco brought an application to enforce an international arbitral award and a U.S. District Court judgment against TicketOps for failing to remit funds owed to suppliers.

TicketOps opposed the application and brought a motion to convert it into an action, arguing a denial of natural justice and public policy concerns, including an allegation of bias because the arbitrator was Facebook friends with Costco's U.S. counsel.

The court dismissed TicketOps' motion and granted the application, finding no valid grounds under the Model Law to refuse recognition and enforcement of the arbitral awards.