M. Reid

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.

The plaintiff, Erwin Banfi, brought a motion for approval of a class action settlement and class counsel fees against multiple municipal and provincial defendants concerning alleged increased flood risk and reduced property values due to overdevelopment in Oakville.

The action, initially premised on property diminution, shifted focus due to difficulties in proving causation and quantifying individual damages.

The proposed settlement involved a $500,000 payment by defendants to the Intact Centre on Climate Adaptation for a flood education and protection program for class members, and class counsel fees of $495,000.

The court approved the cy-près settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, given the litigation's challenges and the material benefit provided to class members.

Class counsel fees and a $5,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff were also approved.

The plaintiff, a former paramedic, was involuntarily admitted to a hospital under the Mental Health Act following a situational crisis and substance abuse relapse.

While in a mental health seclusion room, he became highly agitated, wrapped his hands in fabric, and made threatening gestures toward security staff.

Pursuant to a physician's order, hospital security guards entered the room and physically restrained the plaintiff so that chemical restraints could be administered.

The plaintiff sued the hospital and the security guards, alleging unnecessary and excessive use of force, an unsafe room environment, and that his blood was taken without consent.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the security guards acted reasonably, the force used was not excessive, the room was safe, and the plaintiff had consented to the bloodwork.

The plaintiff, an Ontario resident, was injured in a motor vehicle accident in Alberta while a passenger in a vehicle driven by the defendant, an Alberta resident.

The plaintiff commenced an action in Ontario.

The defendant brought a motion to stay or dismiss the action on the basis that Ontario lacked jurisdiction.

The court applied the Van Breda framework and found no presumptive connecting factors to Ontario, as the tort occurred in Alberta and the defendant resided there.

The court also rejected the plaintiff's argument that the defendant had attorned to Ontario's jurisdiction by filing a statement of defence, noting the defendant consistently challenged jurisdiction.

The action was stayed.

The applicant, who operated a wood shavings business, was sued for negligence after a tree he was cutting down fell and injured the plaintiff.

The applicant sought a declaration that his homeowner's insurer (Northbridge) and his commercial general liability insurer (Economical) had a duty to defend the action.

The court held that Northbridge had no duty to defend because the tree cutting was an occasional pursuit undertaken for financial gain, falling squarely within the policy's business exclusion.

However, the court found that Economical had a duty to defend because the policy covered the applicant as a sole owner of a business, and it was possible the tree cutting arrangement did not constitute a joint venture or partnership that would fall outside coverage.

The applicant's request to appoint independent counsel was dismissed as premature.

A cabinetry contractor brought an action to enforce a construction lien arising from work performed on a custom residential home.

The dispute concerned the contract price, entitlement to extras, whether a $25,000 payment constituted a deposit on the project, whether the lien was preserved in time, and priority between the lien claimant and a building mortgagee.

The court found that the contractor had established a valid contract and entitlement to certain extras, resulting in a total contract price of $59,157 including GST.

The court further held that the $25,000 cheque was a deposit for the project and that the lien was preserved within the statutory period under the Construction Lien Act because substantive work was completed in January 2010.

Applying the statutory priority provisions, the court concluded that the lien claimant had priority over the mortgagee to the extent of the holdback deficiency and a mortgage advance made after the first lien arose.