Parmis Goudarzi-Malayeri

Self-represented plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action arising from the care and treatment of their son at Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre in November 2009.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the claims against Dr. Jagger, Dr. Nigro, and the Hospital on the basis that the plaintiffs had no expert evidence to support allegations of negligence.

The court granted the motions, finding that the plaintiffs failed to provide expert evidence establishing the standard of care, breach of that standard, and causation.

The court awarded costs to the successful defendants.

The moving parties sought to review and set aside a chambers judge's order that dismissed their motion for an extension of time to review a previous order.

This previous order had also dismissed a motion for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal an action that was originally dismissed for delay.

The Court of Appeal, applying the standard of review for a panel review of a chambers judge's decision under s. 7(5) of the Courts of Justice Act, found no legal error or misapprehension of evidence by the chambers judge.

The court concluded that the request for an extension of time was properly denied at each stage and dismissed the motion.

This is an appeal by Dr. Dimitrois Giannoulias from an Associate Justice's order that partially struck paragraphs from a Statement of Claim alleging medical negligence, prior incompetence, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The appeal specifically challenged the Associate Justice's decision not to strike certain pleadings related to the appellant's alleged high surgical complication rates, criticism by experts, and knowledge of deficient skills, arguing these were bald allegations lacking material facts.

The court allowed the appeal, finding the Associate Justice erred in law by not applying the correct test for pleading similar fact evidence and breach of fiduciary duty, as these allegations lacked sufficient material facts or supporting evidence.

The plaintiff, a nightclub operator, brought an action against the City of Toronto and a city councillor for misfeasance in public office, abuse of public office, unlawful interference with economic relations, and conspiracy to defame and injure.

The plaintiff alleged the defendants conspired with the Toronto Police Service to target the nightclub with searches and inspections to force its closure.

The court dismissed the action, finding no evidence of a conspiracy, bad faith, or unlawful conduct by the defendants.

The court held that the city councillor's statements were protected by qualified privilege and statutory immunity, and that the City was not liable for the actions of the police.

The appellants sought an extension of time to seek leave to appeal a Divisional Court decision that upheld the dismissal of their action for delay.

The Court of Appeal applied the "justice of the case" test, considering the appellants' intention to appeal, the length and explanation for delay, prejudice to respondents, and the merits of the proposed appeal.

The court found that the appellants did not provide sufficient evidence for their delay or health claims, and critically, the proposed appeal did not raise an arguable question of law or public importance.

Consequently, the motion for an extension of time was dismissed.