Ritika Rai

The appellant, mother of a man who killed his father, appealed a motion judge's order striking her negligence claim against two psychiatrists who treated her son.

The motion judge had struck the claim alleging negligence in treatment, finding no established duty of care and that imposing such a duty would create an impossible conflict with the duty owed to the patient.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that while the duty of care was not within an established category, the conflict analysis was speculative and should be determined on a proper evidentiary record rather than at the pleadings stage.

The court distinguished the case from precedents involving child protection and medical treatment of pregnant women, emphasizing that the patient and his parents shared a common interest in appropriate treatment.

The court considered a motion by the Defendants for security for costs against the Plaintiff Beijing Hehe Fengye Investment Co. Limited (BHF) in a high-value commercial litigation.

The court reviewed the legal framework under Rule 56.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the justness of ordering security, the merits of the claim, and the financial circumstances of the parties.

The court found that BHF did not have sufficient assets in Ontario, and the claims of BHF and co-plaintiff Rong Kai Hong were not joint such that one could satisfy the other's costs.

The court ordered BHF to post $140,000 as security for costs, balancing the interests of both parties and ensuring access to justice.

The applicants brought an application to appoint an independent firm of chartered accountants to resolve disputes over an earn-out calculation under a share purchase agreement.

The respondent opposed, arguing the disputes involved questions of contractual interpretation that must be decided by the courts, and brought a cross-application for a declaration to that effect.

The court interpreted the dispute resolution clause and concluded that the parties intended for any unresolved matters in dispute, including those requiring contractual interpretation, to be referred to the independent firm acting as an expert.

The applicants' application was granted and the respondent's cross-application was dismissed.

This appeal concerned a dispute over the purchase and sale of a luxury home, where the purchaser sought rescission of the Agreement of Purchase and Sale due to fraudulent misrepresentation and latent defect.

The motion judge granted partial summary judgment for rescission and equitable damages against the seller.

The appellants (seller and co-defendants) argued errors in the finding of fraudulent misrepresentation, latent defect, and the appropriateness of partial summary judgment given a pending conspiracy claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's finding of fraudulent misrepresentation based on the seller's failure to disclose safety risks and false representations, and upheld the partial summary judgment, finding no risk of inconsistent findings between corporate and personal liability for fraud.

This is an appeal from a medical malpractice judgment where the trial judge found the appellant physician negligent in treating a stroke victim, leading to permanent injuries.

The core issue on appeal was causation: whether the trial judge erred in finding that the physician's negligence caused the injuries, specifically by not requiring the plaintiff to establish precisely which treatment option would have prevented the unfavourable outcome.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's robust and pragmatic application of the "but for" causation test, particularly in the context of an evidentiary gap created by the defendant's negligence.

This endorsement addresses the settlement of an order following a summary judgment granted in favour of the plaintiff.

The parties disagreed on the form of the order.

The court clarified that an order must strictly reflect the operative language and relief granted in the prior reasons for decision, and cannot be used to introduce new or additional relief, re-argue points, or vary previously granted relief.

Consequently, several paragraphs from the plaintiff's proposed draft order, which sought new relief or procedural directions not granted in the original reasons, were excluded from the final order.

The plaintiff, a holding company for a professional athlete, purchased a luxury home from the defendant corporation.

Shortly after moving in, the occupants were confronted by a stranger looking for the previous tenant, a known crypto fraudster who had been kidnapped and whose angry investors frequently visited the property.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking rescission of the agreement of purchase and sale.

The court granted the motion, finding that the vendor made a fraudulent misrepresentation by marketing the property as private and secure while knowing of the ongoing safety risks.

The court also found that the safety risk constituted an undisclosed latent defect that rendered the property unfit for habitation.

The court ordered rescission of the contract and, in the alternative, equitable damages.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court found that the plaintiff had not remedied the deficiencies identified in a previous ruling by Diamond J., nor had the law changed to overcome these deficiencies.

The claims for intentional interference with economic relations failed because the third party (Contac) had released its claims against the defendants.

The conspiracy claim failed as it alleged a conspiracy between a corporate officer acting within his corporate capacity and the corporation itself, which is a legal impossibility.

The court also affirmed that a sole shareholder cannot sue for harm done to the corporation when the corporation itself has released its claims.

The motion to strike was granted without leave to amend, and partial indemnity costs were awarded to the defendants.