Richard Bogoroch

The TEC defendants brought a motion to admit evidence from the criminal trial of Christopher Husbands (who committed a mass shooting at the Eaton Centre) into the upcoming civil trial, and to strike the plaintiffs' jury notices.

The defendants argued the evidence was necessary to establish Husbands' mindset and the spontaneity of his actions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that Husbands' specific mindset and reasons for the shooting were not relevant to the core issue of whether the defendants breached their duty of care regarding security under the Occupiers' Liability Act.

As the criminal evidence was not admitted, the court also declined to strike the jury notices, finding that a jury is capable of handling the anticipated expert evidence on security standards.

The plaintiff underwent a laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy performed by the defendant gynecologist.

Following the surgery, the plaintiff experienced incontinence and was diagnosed with a vesicovaginal fistula caused by two sutures inadvertently placed in her bladder.

The parties agreed on damages prior to trial, leaving only the issue of liability.

The court found that the defendant failed to adequately mobilize the bladder during the procedure, leading to the inadvertent suturing.

The court concluded that the placement of the sutures was the result of negligence rather than non-negligent surgical misadventure, and granted judgment for the plaintiff.

A case conference was held to schedule summary judgment motions brought by the Toronto Police Services Board and the Eaton Centre defendants.

The plaintiffs opposed the motions and sought a 14 to 17-day hearing to accommodate viva voce cross-examination of experts, arguing for a trial instead.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' proposed schedule as contrary to the purpose of summary judgment, which is meant to be a faster process.

The court scheduled a 6-day hearing for May 2021 and set a timetable for the exchange of materials and cross-examinations.

The plaintiffs, including two parties under disability represented by the Public Guardian and Trustee, brought a motion for court approval of a $1,000,000 global settlement resolving tort and statutory accident benefit claims arising from five motor vehicle collisions.

The court reviewed the medical evidence, the risks of proceeding to trial, and the proposed allocation of funds, including legal fees.

Finding the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the parties under disability, the court approved the settlement.

Following a jury verdict in a medical negligence action, the plaintiffs moved for judgment in accordance with the verdict, while the defendant physicians sought dismissal of the action or a retrial on the basis that there was no evidence supporting causation.

The court reviewed the narrow circumstances under which a trial judge may refuse to enter judgment consistent with a jury’s verdict under the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 52.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The defendants argued the plaintiffs failed to establish a key link in the causal chain regarding whether mechanical cardiac support could have been obtained within a limited treatment window.

The court found there was some evidence from expert testimony and surrounding facts permitting the jury to infer that appropriate mechanical assistance could have been obtained through inter‑hospital transfer.

Because the verdict was supported by some evidence and the jury’s answers could sustain judgment, the court entered judgment in accordance with the jury’s verdict.