Michael Switzer

The plaintiff sued two physicians for medical malpractice, alleging they negligently failed to diagnose and treat him for Lyme disease following a suspected tick bite in April 2010.

The emergency room physician diagnosed cellulitis and prescribed antibiotics, while the family physician later treated the plaintiff for various ongoing symptoms but did not diagnose Lyme disease.

The court found that neither physician breached the standard of care.

Furthermore, the court concluded the plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he was bitten by a tick or that he actually contracted Lyme disease.

The action was dismissed.

Following a successful wrongful dismissal action under the simplified procedure, the plaintiff sought costs of over $100,000 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The defendants argued the claimed costs were disproportionate to the $98,576 damages awarded and the simplified procedure limits.

The court found the plaintiff's counsel's hours and rates unreasonable for a straightforward wrongful dismissal action.

Applying the principle of proportionality, the court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs fixed at $55,000 for fees and $9,000 for disbursements, plus HST.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for psychological injuries.

The plaintiff, who was not present at the motor vehicle accident, suffered psychological trauma after hearing the immediate aftermath of the collision over the telephone while speaking to her injured daughter.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that whether a duty of care extends to an 'auditory witness' via telephone is a novel issue requiring a full trial.

The court also found genuine issues for trial regarding the discoverability of the claim under the Limitations Act and whether the injuries met the statutory threshold under the Insurance Act.

The plaintiff sued her property insurer and broker after her home was destroyed in a fire.

She brought a motion to amend her statement of claim to increase her claim for punitive damages against the insurer to $100 million, and for directions to have a reference determine the value of the lost contents.

The court granted the amendment, finding that while the amount claimed was preposterous, it was not unmeritorious on its face and caused no prejudice not compensable by costs.

The court dismissed the request for a reference, holding that Rule 54.02(1) does not permit a reference without consent when a jury notice has been served, and that a reference would be inappropriate given the credibility issues involved in proving the loss.

Following a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident, the court ruled on post-verdict issues including the statutory threshold and deductibles.

The court found the plaintiff met the threshold for permanent serious impairment due to a somatic symptom disorder.

However, the court held that the increased statutory deductibles enacted in August 2015 applied retrospectively, which reduced the jury's non-pecuniary and Family Law Act damage awards to zero.

After applying set-offs for statutory accident benefits, judgment was issued for the plaintiffs in the amount of $56,294.98.

The defendant plumbing contractor brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a negligence action arising from residential flooding allegedly caused by a defective toilet supply hose installed during construction.

The moving party argued there was no evidence that any breach of the Ontario Building Code or absence of CSA certification caused the loss.

The court held that the plaintiff had adduced sufficient evidence of negligence, including expert evidence regarding a defective component and discovery evidence suggesting inadequate selection and oversight of plumbing parts.

Applying the summary judgment principles from Hryniak v. Mauldin and the causation framework from Clements v. Clements, the court found that a trier of fact could reasonably infer a substantial connection between the contractor’s conduct and the damage.

A genuine issue requiring a trial existed.