Morton Greenglass

The respondents brought a medical malpractice action against several doctors, alleging a failure to diagnose the deceased's ovarian cancer.

The trial judge found the appellant gynaecologists liable for failing to detect the cancer when they treated her for pelvic inflammatory disease.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by ignoring evidence that the deceased did not return to see one of the appellants, establishing a break in the chain of causation, and dismissed the claim against her.

For the other appellant, the Court found the trial judge made contradictory findings regarding the visual appearance of the ovaries during a laparoscopy and failed to properly assess expert evidence on cancer survival rates.

The appeal was allowed, the judgment set aside, and a new trial ordered for the remaining appellant.

The appellant insurer appealed a trial judgment finding that coverage under a homeowner's policy was not excluded by a 'trade, profession or occupation' clause.

The insured was performing casual handyman activities when a fire broke out.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's interpretation of the policy or reliance on findings from the underlying tort action that the activities were personal and fell within the grant of coverage.