Peter William Kryworuk

The appellants, Tyson Rogerson and his adoptive parents, appealed the dismissal of their medical malpractice action against two physicians, Dr. Elyse Savaria and Dr. Nkiruka Nwebube.

The appellants argued that the physicians breached their duty of care by failing to report a suspected risk of harm to Tyson to the Children's Aid Society (CAS) under s. 72 of the Child and Family Services Act, which they contended would have prevented Tyson's catastrophic brain injury.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the physicians did not breach the standard of care in failing to report, and even if there was a breach, the appellants failed to prove causation, as the CAS would not have intervened in a way that would have prevented the injury.

The appeal was dismissed.

This decision addresses a request by the respondent (defendant in the original action) to limit the scope of a new trial on liability and damages, which had been ordered by the Court of Appeal in a prior decision.

The court dismissed the request, emphasizing that the evidence and issues were complex, interrelated, and interdependent.

Limiting the trial to specific issues would risk artificial credibility assessments and unreliable fact-finding.

This case conference addressed the scheduling of multiple motions following a previous order for a re-hearing of a certification motion.

Counsel for both the plaintiff and defendants sought to schedule additional motions concurrently, including the plaintiff's motion to add representative plaintiffs, the defendants' summary judgment motion against the representative plaintiff, and the defendants' limitations motion regarding the tolling of the limitation period.

Despite a prior order only addressing the certification re-hearing, the court exercised its discretion to hear all four motions together over a three-day period, citing judicial economy due to substantial overlap in issues and counsel's agreement.

This endorsement addresses two motions for leave to appeal before the Divisional Court.

The Plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal a "set aside" order was dismissed with costs awarded to the Defendants.

Concurrently, the Defendants' motion for leave to appeal earlier certification decisions was dismissed without costs, having become moot.

The appellant, Gordon Dunk Farms Ltd., appealed a summary judgment decision that found its action for negligence and breach of contract against the respondents (designers, contractors, and concrete workers) was statute-barred due to the expiration of the limitation period.

The action stemmed from the collapse of a hog barn.

The motion judge found that the appellant's principals knew or ought to have known the material facts constituting their claim by May 12, 2014, more than two years before the action was commenced on May 24, 2016.

The Court of Appeal affirmed that a "claim" under the Limitations Act, 2002, does not require knowledge of every specific act or omission, but rather sufficient facts to draw a plausible inference of liability.

The appeal was dismissed, confirming the action was statute-barred against all respondents.

This is a costs endorsement for three inter-related appeals (C66633, C64430, and C64479).

The parties resolved costs for appeal C64479.

For appeals C64430 and C66633, the Court found that success was mixed, and therefore, there would be no order as to costs for those appeals.

A class representative of Mr. Sub franchisees appealed the Court of Appeal's dismissal of their negligence claim against an exclusive meat supplier following a 2008 listeria recall that caused significant economic losses.

The majority held that the supplier owed no duty of care to the franchisees in respect of pure economic losses because the parties lacked the proximity required under the Anns/Cooper framework.

The majority found that neither the negligent misrepresentation nor the negligent supply of shoddy goods categories of pure economic loss applied, and that the multipartite contractual matrix — under which the franchisees could have sought alternative supply sources — precluded a finding of proximity.

The dissent would have recognized a novel duty of care arising from the close and direct relationship between the exclusive supplier and the franchisees who were contractually bound to purchase exclusively from it.

The appeal was dismissed five-to-four, with costs.

This is an appeal from a jury trial in a personal injury case arising from a single-vehicle crash.

The plaintiffs (Tuffnail family) were injured, and liability was apportioned among the driver (Meekes), the host (Bolton), the bartender (Coulthard), and the plaintiff (Tuffnail).

Multiple parties appealed the post-verdict rulings.

The Court of Appeal found that Coulthard was "jointly liable" with Meekes for the purposes of OPCF 44R, allowing State Farm to deduct Coulthard's insurance limits, thereby reducing State Farm's payout to the Tuffnails.

The court clarified that State Farm must share subrogation recoveries with the Tuffnails on a pro rata basis until the Tuffnails receive full indemnification under the judgment, correcting the trial judge's order that limited it to the OPCF 44R endorsement.

The court upheld the trial judge's decision on Coulthard's several liability to Bolton, rejecting the argument for reapportionment of fault without Meekes.

The court found the trial judge erred in awarding prejudgment interest higher than the bank rate, reducing it to 1.3% as market rates did not justify a higher rate and the "expectation" factor was inappropriate.

Finally, the court upheld the denial of Coulthard's request to amend pleadings to add a limitation defence post-verdict due to non-compensable prejudice.

The plaintiff in a medical malpractice action sought an extension of time for discoveries.

The defendant Dr. Tayfour cross-moved for dismissal for delay or a stay until costs were paid.

The court dismissed the defendant's motions, finding that the plaintiff's delays were not inordinate or inexcusable, and there was no substantial risk of an unfair trial.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, setting new timelines for discoveries and trial, and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff costs of the motion.

This appeal concerns a class action brought by Mr. Submarine Ltd. franchisees against Maple Leaf Foods Inc. following a 2008 listeria contamination outbreak.

The franchisees claimed damages for economic losses arising from reputational harm allegedly caused by their public association with Maple Leaf during the recall.

The motion judge found that Maple Leaf owed a duty of care to the franchisees both in relation to the supply of fit products and regarding representations about product safety.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that while Maple Leaf may owe a duty to supply safe products, this duty is owed to end consumers, not franchisees, and does not extend to protecting against reputational harm or pure economic losses.

The court also found that Maple Leaf's undertaking regarding product safety did not encompass protection of the franchisees' reputational interests.

The plaintiffs in two class action proceedings sought leave to appeal the dismissal of their motion for contempt against the defendants.

The contempt motion alleged that the City of Windsor breached an order limiting communication with class members during an opt-out period.

The court denied leave to appeal, finding that the original judge correctly applied the test for contempt, which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, a clear and unequivocal order, and deliberate and willful disobedience.

The court found no error in the original judge's conclusion that the order was ambiguous and that a wilful breach was not proven.

Furthermore, the court determined that the plaintiffs failed to identify any conflicting decisions or raise matters of such importance to warrant leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The defendants brought a motion seeking to compel the plaintiff insured to attend for an examination under oath or alternatively an examination for discovery regarding the scope and quantum of damages arising from a flood loss claim under a property insurance policy.

The plaintiff argued that because the insurer had invoked the appraisal process under s. 128 of the Insurance Act, issues of quantum were exclusively within that process and outside the court’s jurisdiction.

The court rejected that position, holding that the statutory right to examine the insured under oath was not displaced by the election to proceed through appraisal and that the court retained jurisdiction to make procedural orders facilitating the statutory scheme.

The court also found the plaintiff’s proof of loss materially deficient and concluded that disclosure regarding damages was necessary.

A separate motion by the defendants to quash a summons requiring their appointed appraiser, who had since become counsel of record, to be examined was granted as the proposed examination constituted an unnecessary fishing expedition lacking evidentiary relevance to the pending motion.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a carriage decision in competing securities class proceedings under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

A prior motion judge had granted carriage to one group of plaintiffs and stayed the applicant’s action after comparing factors such as causes of action, class definitions, representative plaintiffs, and litigation strategies.

The applicant argued the motion judge improperly conducted a substantive comparison of the competing theories and failed to give sufficient weight to factors such as conflicts of interest and retainer arrangements.

The court held that there was conflicting jurisprudence regarding the proper scope of analysis on carriage motions and that the issue warranted appellate clarification.

Leave to appeal was granted on the question of whether the motion judge erred in assessing the theories and attributes of the competing class actions and in determining carriage.

A certified class proceeding alleged that a manufacturer negligently designed, tested, marketed, and monitored mechanical heart valves coated with a silver-based antimicrobial surface.

The plaintiffs argued that the coating impaired tissue healing and increased the risk of complications including paravalvular leak, thromboembolism, and death.

After an extensive common‑issues trial involving scientific, epidemiological, and regulatory evidence, the court found the manufacturer exercised reasonable care in product design, testing, and post‑market surveillance.

The court concluded that the coating did not adversely affect tissue healing and did not materially increase the risk of most alleged complications, except for a temporary increase in paravalvular leak risk in the early post‑implant period.

Because negligence and causation were not established, the class action was dismissed.