Natalie V. Kolos

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims arising from the birth of a child with spina bifida.

The defendants argued the mother's wrongful birth claim was statute-barred and the child's wrongful life claim disclosed no cause of action.

The court dismissed the motion regarding the wrongful birth claim, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding whether the limitation period was tolled due to the mother's reliance on the doctor's alleged misrepresentation that the ultrasound was clear.

The court granted the motion to dismiss the wrongful life claim, confirming settled law that a physician does not owe a duty of care to a future child for a lack of informed consent to the mother.

The plaintiff brought a motion on consent to certify the action as a class proceeding for settlement purposes only.

The action alleged that the defendants improperly collected and used the personal information of individuals who purchased or leased vehicles equipped with satellite radios.

The court reviewed the criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and found that the pleadings disclosed a cause of action, there was an identifiable class, common issues existed, a class proceeding was the preferable procedure, and there was an adequate representative plaintiff.

The motion was granted and the action was certified for settlement purposes.

Following a 70-day medical malpractice jury trial where the plaintiff was awarded $3.75 million in damages, the court determined the appropriate quantum of costs.

The plaintiff sought over $3.3 million in costs and disbursements, while the defendants argued for a significantly lower amount, citing proportionality and excessive hours.

The court analyzed the Rule 57 factors, noting the complexity of the case, the necessity of extensive preparation by plaintiff's counsel, and the fact that defence costs themselves exceeded $3.2 million.

The court fixed the plaintiff's costs at $2,404,765 for fees and $628,387 for disbursements, totaling $3,033,152.

During a medical malpractice jury trial, the defendant physicians sought leave under Rule 53.08 to file a supplementary expert report and to elicit testimony from their experts on matters not explicitly stated in their reports.

The court denied leave for the supplementary report, finding it failed to comply with Rule 53.03 by omitting the reasons for its conclusions, and its admission would cause undue prejudice to the plaintiffs.

The court also ruled on several evidentiary objections, narrowly interpreting the 'latency' principle.

The court held that experts cannot use conclusory statements in their reports to ambush opposing parties with new reasons or theories at trial, though exceptions were made where testimony directly responded to new developments during the trial.

This is a costs endorsement following the Court of Appeal's decision on an appeal from a Superior Court judgment.

The respondent abandoned his right to seek costs under Rule 58.06.

The appellant and amicus curiae reached an agreement on costs, with amicus curiae entitled to costs fixed at $40,000, inclusive of disbursements and all applicable taxes.

An orthopaedic surgeon appealed a trial judgment finding him liable for failing to obtain informed consent before performing total wrist fusion surgery on a 73-year-old professional golfer.

The trial judge awarded $20,000 in general damages and $40,000 for lost income.

The surgeon argued the trial judge erred in applying the causation test, in finding a duty to warn about regional sympathetic dystrophy (RSD), and in misapprehending expert evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding the trial judge properly applied the law of informed consent and causation, and that her factual findings were entitled to deference.

Prior to a medical malpractice jury trial, the court ruled on several procedural and evidentiary motions.

The plaintiffs had entered into a Pierringer Agreement with the defendant hospital and nurses, leaving only the physicians as defendants.

The court ruled that both the plaintiffs and the physicians could cross-examine the settling nurses at trial.

The court also determined the sequencing and phrasing of jury questions, ruling that standard of care must be determined before causation, and permitting 'caused or contributed' language due to the presence of multiple tortfeasors.

Finally, the court allowed the plaintiffs to use photographs of the amputations in their opening address but restricted the experts' use of lengthy PowerPoint presentations.