Matthew Rynen

A negligence action arising from a fall suffered by an 80-year-old patient hospitalized at London Health Sciences Centre.

The patient was admitted with confusion secondary to a urinary tract infection and subsequently fell on August 15, 2015, resulting in discovery of an acute-on-chronic subdural hematoma requiring neurosurgery.

The patient never recovered her prior cognitive function and died in April 2021.

The court found that the defendant nurses breached the standard of care by failing to complete a Fall Risk Assessment and Intervention Flowsheet and failing to implement a documented toileting routine responsive to the patient's frequent urination needs.

However, the court dismissed the action because the plaintiffs failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the fall caused the acute portion of the subdural hematoma, and failed to prove that the acute bleed changed the patient's treatment or clinical outcomes.

This appeal concerns a dispute over legal fees between a law firm and its client.

The client, Toshiko Nakano, appealed a decision by an Assessment Officer who had reduced the legal fees from over $110,000 to $80,000.

The Appellant argued that the Assessment Officer misapplied the law, failed to consider relevant evidence, and allowed procedural irregularities, particularly regarding the handling of objections and evidentiary issues.

The Respondent solicitors argued that the Assessment Officer's decision was largely correct, with one minor error regarding an adverse inference.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that despite the Assessment Officer's initial procedural errors in handling objections, the original reasons for the assessment were unassailable and the overall result was fair, just, and proportionate.

The defendant moved to compel the 94-year-old plaintiff, Estelle Bock, to attend an independent medical examination (IME) in Scarborough, Ontario, after she cancelled an initial appointment due to concerns about the long travel from Sarnia.

The plaintiff's family physician provided an affidavit stating that such travel would be detrimental to her health.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion, finding that requiring the plaintiff to travel to Scarborough was beyond inconvenient and jeopardized her health, despite the defendant's prima facie right to choose their expert.

The court granted the defendant leave to arrange an IME in London, Ontario, which the plaintiff's physician deemed medically feasible.

Costs of $2,000 were awarded to the plaintiff, payable forthwith, due to plaintiff's counsel's initial agreement to the Scarborough assessment.