Pheroze John Khursheed Jeejeebhoy

Following a successful appeal in which the appellants were awarded a 50% interest in a residential property, the court addressed trial costs.

The appellants sought approximately $155,000 in costs on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing the result beat their offer to settle.

The court declined, finding the result did not beat the offer because the appellants were awarded 50% ownership rather than 50% of the equity, with the equity value remaining to be determined on a subsequent accounting.

Trial costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $70,000 all inclusive.

The appeal arose from a dispute over whether a substantial contribution to a home purchase created a beneficial ownership interest under resulting trust principles.

The majority held the trial judge made a legal error by disregarding key third-party evidence probative of the transferor’s objective intention and allowed the appeal.

The court declared the appellants entitled to a 50% beneficial interest in the property, set aside the judgment and costs below, and remitted related sale and accounting remedies for case management.

A dissent would have dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible legal or factual error and concluding the transfer was supported by consideration.

The applicants, families of adults with severe autism, sought judicial review of the Ministry's decision to discontinue special, non-statutory funding for Applied Behavioural Analysis (ABA) therapy and transition them to mainstream adult developmental services.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the allocation of public funds is a political decision not subject to judicial review absent bad faith.

The court also dismissed the applicants' Charter claims, reaffirming that section 7 does not impose a positive obligation on the state to fund specific health or social services, and finding no breach of sections 7, 9, or 12 regarding one applicant's involuntary hospitalization under the Mental Health Act.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend her Statement of Claim to substitute the underwriter, Industrial Alliance, for the originally named defendants (the claims administrator and the policy name) under the doctrine of misnomer.

The plaintiff had purchased travel medical insurance and was denied coverage for a $90,000 US medical bill.

The court found that the plaintiff clearly intended to sue the issuer of the policy and that Industrial Alliance would have known it was the intended defendant upon reading the claim.

The court granted the motion, finding no prejudice to the proposed defendant.

The plaintiff, Gregory Lennox, sued Dr. Andrew Burns for medical negligence following a colostomy reversal surgery that resulted in permanent disability, including femoral nerve damage and bowel dysfunction.

Lennox alleged failure to obtain informed consent, negligent surgical technique (including blunt dissection and failure to abandon the procedure), and negligent post-operative care for C-difficile infections.

The court found that Dr. Burns obtained informed consent, as the risks of not completing the procedure or femoral nerve damage were not material or foreseeable.

The court also found that Dr. Burns met the standard of care in his surgical technique and post-operative management, despite expert disagreement on some points.

While acknowledging the plaintiff's unfortunate outcome and the potential for femoral nerve damage to have been avoided if the surgery was terminated earlier, the court concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove negligence or causation for the majority of the claimed damages.

The action was dismissed.

Following a jury trial arising from a motor vehicle accident, the action was dismissed after statutory deductions eliminated the plaintiffs’ damages awards.

The defendant sought costs, arguing the trial result was more favourable than her pre‑trial settlement offer.

The plaintiffs opposed costs or sought reductions, relying on a minor damages award to one plaintiff, alleged failures to admit facts, hardship, and challenges to the defendant’s bill of costs.

The court held that the defendant, as the successful party, was entitled to partial indemnity costs throughout and rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments for offset or substantial reduction.

Certain disbursements were disallowed or reduced, and the total costs were fixed at $100,000 inclusive.

The appellant appealed a jury verdict in a medical malpractice action, arguing the trial judge erred in his instructions on informed consent and the use of a doctor's post-surgery opinion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly instructed the jury on the modified objective test for informed consent, which considers whether a reasonable person in the appellant's position would have refused the procedure.

The court also found no error in the instructions regarding the post-surgery opinion evidence.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $15,000.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their medical malpractice action against the respondent gynaecologist.

During a laparoscopic bilateral oophorectomy, the appellant's colon was burned by a cautery instrument.

The trial judge found that the respondent caused the burn but concluded there was insufficient evidence to find he fell below the standard of care, as the appellants' expert did not address the specific location where the respondent testified he applied the cautery.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that it was open to the trial judge to decline to draw an inference of negligence given the gap in the expert evidence.