Ronald Bohm

The defendant physician in a medical malpractice action sought an extension under rr. 53.03(4) and 53.08(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to serve three late expert reports.

The court granted the motion with respect to one report, finding that the unexpected death of the originally retained expert constituted a reasonable explanation for the delay.

However, the court denied the motion for the remaining two reports, holding that trial counsel's admitted inattentiveness to the file and deliberate choice to prioritize other matters did not constitute a reasonable explanation, and that the conjunctive test under the amended r. 53.08(1) required dismissal absent satisfaction of that threshold.

The applicants, parents of the deceased, brought an application against the deceased's husband seeking his removal as estate trustee and alleging he misappropriated funds raised for the deceased's cancer treatment.

The respondent moved to strike the application under Rule 21.01(1)(b) for lack of standing.

The court struck the estate-related claims because the applicants were not beneficiaries and had no financial interest in the estate.

However, the court declined to strike the trust-related claims, finding it was not plain and obvious that the applicants lacked standing to seek the return or charitable donation of the raised funds, as they had personally contributed to them.

A related motion for further financial production was dismissed.

Following a jurisdiction motion where the defendant insurers successfully argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over the proposed class actions, the insurers sought costs of approximately $620,000.

The court found this request preposterous and excessive, fixing costs payable by the plaintiffs to the 13 non-settling insurers at $28,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The costs payable by the government regulator to the plaintiffs were settled at $12,500.

The plaintiffs filed proposed class actions against 15 auto insurers and the provincial regulator, FSCO, alleging improper deduction of HST from statutory accident benefits.

The defendant insurers brought motions to dismiss the actions for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) has exclusive jurisdiction over such disputes.

The court agreed, dismissing the actions against the insurers and refusing to approve two early settlements, as the claims fell squarely within the LAT's exclusive jurisdiction under s. 280 of the Insurance Act.

However, the court found it had jurisdiction to hear the claims against FSCO for regulatory negligence, as those allegations did not directly concern benefit entitlements or amounts.

The self-represented plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action against several physicians and hospitals.

After their initial lawyer declined to formally represent them, the plaintiffs emailed defence counsel agreeing to dismiss the action on a without-costs basis.

When the plaintiffs later retained new counsel and sought to continue the action, the defendants brought a motion under Rule 49.09 to enforce the settlement.

The court granted the motion, finding that the email exchange constituted a binding agreement on all essential terms and that there was no evidence of unconscionability to vitiate the settlement.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action claiming ownership of a family corporation on the basis that it was statute-barred.

The plaintiff argued that the limitation period was suspended under s. 7 of the Limitations Act, 2002 due to his mental incapacity.

The court found that the plaintiff knew or ought to have known the material facts of his claim for a resulting trust by 2002, when he began demanding the corporation back.

As the claim was discovered well before the action was commenced in 2012, the action was statute-barred and dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action following the death of a 22-year-old man from an aortic dissection six days after he was treated and discharged from an emergency department.

The plaintiffs alleged the emergency physician breached the standard of care by failing to properly review the chart, taking a substandard history, and failing to consider cardiovascular diseases in his differential diagnosis.

The court found that the physician met the standard of care, as the patient's presentation was consistent with a musculoskeletal injury and the likelihood of an aortic dissection in a healthy 22-year-old was exceedingly rare.

The court also found that causation was not proven.

The action was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment arising from a solicitor’s breach of undertaking to repay loans advanced to a client from settlement proceeds of litigation.

The solicitor conceded breach but argued liability was limited to the $40,000 expressly covered by written undertakings.

The court held that additional losses were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the breach because the lender relied on the undertaking and continued advancing funds while unaware of settlements.

Documentary evidence including cheques and a promissory note constituted sufficient corroboration under s. 13 of the Evidence Act.

Summary judgment was granted for $100,000 plus pre‑judgment interest.