Paul J. Pape

The appellant nurse was terminated and her employer reported the termination to the College of Nurses.

After the College dismissed the charges, the appellant sued her employer and manager for wrongful dismissal and bad faith.

The motion judge struck the bad faith claims, ruling that s. 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 rendered all related documents inadmissible.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, holding that documents created in the normal course of business prior to the report to the College are not protected by s. 36(3) and can be used to prove bad faith.

The appellant appealed a carriage order made by the Superior Court of Justice in a class proceeding.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the carriage order is an interlocutory order, meaning the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The appeal was dismissed, with the court noting that the proper route is to the Divisional Court by way of leave to appeal.

The appellants, a law firm and its principal lawyer, appealed a motion judge's decision denying them a fee premium and reimbursement of disbursements for their representation of a catastrophically injured client under a disability.

During the appeal, the parties reached a settlement for a reduced fee premium and full disbursements.

The Court of Appeal approved the settlement, finding it was in the best interests of the person under a disability and fairly compensated the lawyers for their services and risk.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their action for damages against the respondent municipality.

The appellant and a friend had driven down a dead-end rural road, got stuck on a hydro right-of-way, and abandoned their vehicle in extreme cold, resulting in severe frostbite injuries.

The appellants argued the municipality breached its standard of care by failing to post 'No Exit' and checkerboard signs.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the road conditions were not potentially dangerous to reasonable drivers and that the appellants would have ignored the signs regardless.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant obstetrician appealed a trial judgment finding him negligent in the forceps delivery of an infant who suffered catastrophic brain injuries due to an umbilical cord prolapse.

The trial judge found the appellant breached the standard of care by disengaging the fetal head during the procedure.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in discharging the jury, finding negligence, and assessing causation.

The respondents cross-appealed the future care costs award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding the trial judge's decision to discharge the jury was reasonable, his factual findings on negligence were supported by the record, and the damages award was fair.

The appellant, who was struck on the head with rollerblades by a fellow student in the schoolyard when she was six years old, appealed the dismissal of her negligence action against the school board.

She argued that the absence of an incident report and the presence of rollerblades contrary to school policy compelled a finding of negligent supervision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's finding that the incident occurred suddenly and without warning, and that the appellant failed to establish a breach of the duty of care owed by the school.

The appellant hospital appealed a jury verdict finding it liable for medical malpractice resulting in an infant's permanent brain injury (cerebral palsy) due to oxygen deprivation during birth.

The jury found the attending nurse breached the standard of care by failing to use electronic foetal monitoring and failing to properly perform intermittent auscultation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that there was sufficient expert evidence to support the jury's findings on both the breach of the standard of care and causation, and that the verdict was not plainly unreasonable.