M. Graham

The plaintiff suffered a cardiac arrest and profound brain damage following a Caesarean section delivery.

She brought a medical malpractice action against the obstetrical and anaesthesiology teams.

The court found that the obstetrical team met the standard of care.

While the staff anaesthesiologist breached the standard of care in three respects, the court concluded that these breaches did not cause the plaintiff's injuries.

The court accepted expert evidence that the cardiac arrest was caused by an unpredictable and unpreventable amniotic fluid embolism, rather than hemorrhagic shock.

The court also ruled that the claim against the anaesthesiologists was not statute-barred due to the discoverability doctrine.

The action was dismissed.

In a custody and access trial concerning a two‑year‑old child, the father sought joint custody, expanded access, transportation sharing, a hyphenated surname for the child, and reduced child support based on obligations to another child.

The court found the parents were unable to communicate effectively and were subject to criminal no‑contact conditions arising from a pending charge, making joint custody inappropriate.

Sole custody was granted to the mother, who had been the child’s primary caregiver, but extensive parenting time and communication safeguards were ordered to preserve the father’s relationship with the child.

The court ordered a temporary two‑out‑of‑three weekend access schedule transitioning to alternating weekends when the child begins school or the mother obtains significant employment.

The child’s surname was ordered changed to a hyphenated name including both parents’ surnames, and the father was required to pay full table child support.

In a child protection trial under the Child and Family Services Act, the society sought Crown wardship without access for an infant apprehended at birth due to serious concerns about the mother’s substance abuse, instability, and inability to parent.

The mother did not attend trial and presented no evidence, while the society filed multiple affidavits detailing longstanding addiction, inconsistent contact with the child, prior child protection involvement, and the absence of viable family placements.

The court found the child in need of protection under s. 37(2) and concluded that returning the child to the mother would pose a significant risk of physical and emotional harm.

Given statutory time limits on society wardship and the mother’s failure to address her issues, Crown wardship was determined to be the only safe and realistic option.

The court also terminated access, finding no evidence of a beneficial and meaningful relationship that would satisfy the test under s. 59(2.1).