Matthew Umbrio

The Member admitted to professional misconduct, including sexual abuse and failing to maintain professional boundaries with a patient.

The Member made inappropriate sexual comments to the patient and engaged in personal and business activities with her during the treating relationship.

The Discipline Committee accepted the Agreed Statement of Facts and found the Member committed professional misconduct.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a four-month suspension (with one month remitted upon completion of an ethics course), reimbursement of up to $17,370 for patient therapy, and $6,000 in costs.

This is a motion for court approval of a settlement in a complex medical malpractice case involving a person under disability, Nathaniel Hughes.

The plaintiffs sought approval of a $4.5 million settlement, including a structured annuity, for injuries sustained by Nathaniel as an infant at Peterborough Regional Health Centre.

The court reviewed the settlement under Rule 7.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering the risks of litigation and the best interests of the person under disability.

The court found the settlement, including legal fees and disbursements, to be fair and reasonable given the complexities and risks, and approved it.

The defendants successfully sought costs after obtaining summary judgment dismissing a medical malpractice claim.

The court, while acknowledging the plaintiffs' difficult experience and self-representation, awarded discounted costs to the defendants, emphasizing the principle of indemnity for the successful party tempered by the expectation of the unsuccessful party.

The defendants, a hospital and several doctors, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a medical malpractice claim.

The plaintiffs, after 9 years of litigation, failed to provide admissible expert reports supporting their allegations of negligence in obstetric and gynecological care.

The court found that the reports tendered by the plaintiffs were not proper expert reports for litigation purposes, lacking opinions on the standard of care and causation, and not conforming to Rule 53.

Given the absence of expert evidence, which is generally fatal to medical malpractice claims, the court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the action.

The self-represented plaintiff commenced an action against a hospital, its CEO, a local health integration network, and retirement homes, claiming $10 million in damages for negligence, 'kidnapping for profit', and murder relating to his mother's care and subsequent death.

The hospital defendants moved to strike the claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b) for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court allowed the motion to proceed despite the defendants having already filed a statement of defence.

The court struck the claim without leave to amend, finding no basis for personal liability against the CEO, no duty of care owed to the plaintiff in his personal capacity by the hospital defendants, and that the alleged torts of murder and kidnapping are not recognized in civil law.

Costs of $7,500 were awarded to the hospital defendants.

The plaintiffs in a medical malpractice action brought a motion to extend the time for service of the statement of claim on two defendant physicians, and to validate service by email.

The two physicians had left the country and were difficult to locate.

The court granted the extension of time nunc pro tunc, finding no prejudice to the defendants and that the plaintiffs had made reasonable efforts to locate them.

The court validated service by email on one physician, but declined to validate service on the other physician residing in Israel, as the plaintiffs failed to establish that email service was permitted under the Hague Convention.