Richard Charles Halpern

This is a motion for court approval of a settlement in a complex medical malpractice case involving a person under disability, Nathaniel Hughes.

The plaintiffs sought approval of a $4.5 million settlement, including a structured annuity, for injuries sustained by Nathaniel as an infant at Peterborough Regional Health Centre.

The court reviewed the settlement under Rule 7.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering the risks of litigation and the best interests of the person under disability.

The court found the settlement, including legal fees and disbursements, to be fair and reasonable given the complexities and risks, and approved it.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their medical malpractice claim against a family physician for alleged negligence in prenatal care that resulted in the infant appellant being born with cerebral palsy.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred in rejecting their theories that the mother suffered from pre-eclampsia or elevated blood pressure, and that the physician was negligent in failing to induce labour or refer her to an obstetrician.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings that the physician met the standard of care and that the appellants failed to prove causation.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action alleging that the defendant family physician's negligence during the mother's pregnancy and delivery caused the infant plaintiff to be born with cerebral palsy.

The plaintiffs argued the doctor failed to properly monitor the mother's hypertension, failed to refer her to an obstetrician, and negligently prescribed enalapril, an ACE inhibitor, shortly before birth.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding that the doctor met the standard of care of a family physician in the circumstances and that his clinical judgments were reasonable.

Furthermore, the court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the enalapril or the mother's hypertension caused the infant's injuries, which were likely the result of an acute intrauterine event such as cord compression.

The appellant insurer appealed an arbitrator's decision finding that the respondents were involved in an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule when a disconnected trailer rolled down a driveway and crushed one of the respondents.

The Director's Delegate upheld the arbitrator's finding that the trailer was an 'automobile' because it was being used in connection with the pickup truck at the time of the incident.

Although the Director's Delegate disagreed that the pickup truck was the direct cause of the injuries, finding instead that the trailer was the dominant feature, the ultimate conclusion that the appellant was liable to pay accident benefits was confirmed.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicants, two young boys, were injured when an unhitched trailer rolled down a driveway and crushed one of them against a utility pole.

They applied for statutory accident benefits from the insurer of their parents' vehicles.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing the incident was not an 'accident' under section 2(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The arbitrator found that the trailer was being used in connection with the pickup truck that towed it, satisfying the purpose test.

The arbitrator also found that the use of the truck and trailer directly caused the injuries, as the trailer was not properly secured and rolled down the driveway immediately after being unhitched.

The arbitrator concluded the incident was an 'accident' and the applicants were entitled to benefits.

The appellants appealed a trial judge's costs disposition.

Prior to trial, the appellants offered to settle the case for $85,100.

The parties later agreed on damages of $125,000, and the trial proceeded only on liability, resulting in a finding against the respondents.

The trial judge held that the agreement on damages invalidated the prior offer to settle and awarded partial indemnity costs.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the offer to settle was not withdrawn and Rule 49.10 applied, entitling the appellants to substantial indemnity costs from the date of the offer.

The court remitted the quantum of costs to the trial judge and upheld the refusal to award a risk premium.