Phuong T.V. Ngo

The plaintiff sued two physicians for medical malpractice, alleging they negligently failed to diagnose and treat him for Lyme disease following a suspected tick bite in April 2010.

The emergency room physician diagnosed cellulitis and prescribed antibiotics, while the family physician later treated the plaintiff for various ongoing symptoms but did not diagnose Lyme disease.

The court found that neither physician breached the standard of care.

Furthermore, the court concluded the plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he was bitten by a tick or that he actually contracted Lyme disease.

The action was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion seeking costs thrown away on a substantial indemnity basis for a late trial adjournment and an order suspending pre-judgment interest.

The trial was adjourned due to the plaintiff's counsel's failure to comply with timetable orders, including providing proper witness statements and an ever-changing witness list, which rendered the original four-week trial estimate unrealistic.

The court found the plaintiff and his counsel responsible for the adjournment, awarded the defendants $100,000 in costs thrown away on a partial indemnity basis, and suspended pre-judgment interest from the original trial date until the new trial date.

A physician brought a motion under Rule 21.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the plaintiff’s claims alleging negligent medical treatment of the plaintiff’s child, conspiracy, defamation, abuse of public office, and Charter breaches.

The court held that the pleadings failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action, lacked necessary material facts, and improperly advanced speculative allegations against numerous defendants.

The court further found no duty of care owed by the physician to the plaintiff personally, as the treatment was provided to the child and no therapeutic relationship with the plaintiff was pleaded.

Several asserted causes of action were legally untenable or inadequately pleaded, and the claims were also barred by the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The claims against the physician were struck without leave to amend.

The moving lawyer defendants sought to strike a self-represented plaintiff’s expansive civil action alleging conspiracy, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, Charter breaches, defamation, and other torts arising from criminal proceedings and child protection litigation.

The court held that the statement of claim lacked material facts linking the lawyer defendants to the alleged misconduct and improperly attempted to relitigate criminal convictions and child protection determinations.

Many claims were also barred by the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court found the pleadings vague, speculative, and abusive, failing to establish recognized causes of action or the elements of torts such as conspiracy, malicious prosecution, defamation, or abuse of public office.

The action against the four lawyer defendants was struck or dismissed without leave to amend.

The plaintiffs, a joint venture, sued the Attorney General of Canada for damages arising from a flawed government procurement process for relocation services.

The plaintiffs alleged that the Crown breached its implied contractual duty of fair and equal treatment by designing the Request for Proposals to favour the incumbent contractor, Royal LePage Relocation Services.

The court found that the Crown acted in bad faith, intentionally concealed preferences in the tender documents, and allowed the incumbent to submit a non-compliant bid regarding property management services.

The court declared the plaintiffs the successful tendering party and awarded them $29,166,507 in damages for lost profits.

A claim for punitive damages was dismissed.

During a lengthy civil trial concerning federal relocation service contracts, the plaintiffs brought a motion to vary an earlier production order that had refused disclosure of a competitor’s administration fees.

After hearing extensive trial evidence, the court concluded that the administration fees were relevant to both liability and damages, particularly in understanding the effect of a zero‑percent bid for property management services.

Newly discovered facts showed that the defendant’s expert had requested and used the fees in internal analyses despite earlier representations suggesting otherwise.

Applying Rule 59.06(2)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that orders may be varied where new facts arise or are discovered that would have materially affected the earlier decision.

The court therefore ordered limited disclosure of the administration fees and related reconciliation documents.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their statement of claim during the cross‑examination of a witness.

The court addressed the procedural steps required to fairly accommodate the amendments while the trial was ongoing.

The judge ordered that the plaintiffs complete the current cross‑examination, after which the defendant could file an amended statement of defence responding to the amendments.

Additional procedural directions were provided allowing the defendant to recall the witness, conduct examination in chief on new matters, and potentially call further witnesses addressing issues arising from the amendments.

During an ongoing civil trial, the plaintiffs sought leave to amend their statement of claim based on information obtained from documents recently disclosed by the defendant relating to an internal investigation into conflicts of interest in a government procurement process.

The proposed amendments alleged concealment of investigation results, revisions to internal reports, reprisals against the investigator, and motivations behind a subsequent retendering process.

The defendant opposed only the allegations concerning disciplinary threats against the investigator, arguing they were not relevant to the pleaded causes of action.

The court held that the amendments were prima facie meritorious and relevant to the plaintiffs’ theory that the defendant intended to conceal the investigation results and influenced the investigation process.

Finding no non-compensable prejudice under Rule 26 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court granted leave to amend the statement of claim.

The plaintiffs sought a ruling confirming the admissibility of documents produced pursuant to a prior court order in litigation concerning federal relocation services procurement processes.

The defendant argued that the documents constituted hearsay, lacked authenticity, and were irrelevant to the fairness of the procurement process.

The court rejected these objections, finding the documents relevant to issues including alleged bias or preferential treatment in favour of another service provider and the conduct of government officials during the procurement processes.

The court held that the documents formed part of contractual documentation required under the relevant requests for proposal and were admissible for evidentiary purposes, including cross‑examination and proof of their contents.

Costs of the ruling were awarded to the plaintiffs on a partial indemnity basis.