Ronald P. Bohm

The defendants appealed a decision regarding the delivery of expert reports.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and granted the defendant leave to deliver the expert reports of Dr. Turcotte on causation and Professor Hyatt on damages.

Reasons for the decision were to follow.

As agreed by the parties, no costs were ordered.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a January 30, 2026 decision.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal without costs and ordered that the appeal be expedited, directing the parties to attend a case management teleconference to set a schedule.

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 plaintiffs sought leave under Rules 53.03(4) and 53.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to deliver two further expert reports—an orthopaedic assessment and a future care cost report—after the pre-trial conference had been completed.

The court reviewed the applicable rules and relevant case law, ultimately finding that the plaintiffs failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the late delivery of both reports.

The motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the defendants.

The applicant challenged the validity of his deceased mother's 2005 Will, arguing that her limited English skills prevented her from understanding and approving its contents and that the Will was executed under suspicious circumstances.

The respondent, the deceased's daughter and estate trustee, defended the Will's validity and sought occupation rent from the applicant for his rent-free residence in the deceased's home since her death.

The Court dismissed the application, finding that the deceased possessed sufficient English proficiency to understand and approve the Will and that there was no evidence of duress or undue influence.

Consequently, the Court declared the 2005 Will valid, ordered the applicant to pay $144,766.02 in occupation rent to the estate, and granted a writ of possession to enforce his eviction.

This decision addresses an evidentiary dispute during a trial regarding the admissibility of post-assessment medical reports through a defendant fact witness, Dr. McPherson.

The defendants sought to introduce reports created after Dr. McPherson's last assessment of the plaintiff, Jeremy Veran, to demonstrate improvement in symptoms.

The plaintiffs objected, arguing Dr. McPherson had not seen these documents and was not an expert witness.

The court ruled that documents not seen or received by Dr. McPherson, and not directly relevant to his care of the plaintiff, could not be introduced through him as a fact witness, even if they were part of the joint book of documents.

The defendants brought a motion to address two issues: the admissibility of opinions in two plaintiff expert reports (Miyanji and Levin) and the admissibility of evidence from five lay witnesses.

The court ruled that portions of the Miyanji and Levin reports that did not respond to specific "Defence Expert Reports" or introduced new standard of care issues were inadmissible due to late service and lack of reasonable explanation.

The motion to exclude the lay witnesses was dismissed as premature, with the court stating that the admissibility of their evidence, particularly any opinion evidence, should be assessed at the time it is tendered at trial.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking several orders before trial, including dismissal of claims against certain defendants, leave to amend their statement of claim, preliminary determination of jury questions, and exclusion of expert evidence.

The court granted the dismissal of claims against the "Released Defendants" without costs, as it was previously agreed upon.

Leave was granted to file a Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim, as the proposed amendments were extensive and did not remove admissions.

The court also determined the format for jury questions, largely adopting the plaintiffs' approach for damages and requiring explanations for answers, emphasizing standard of care and "but for" causation.

The issue of expert evidence was adjourned to a later date.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to preclude the defendants from introducing evidence from fifteen expert reports served late in a medical malpractice action.

The court considered the admissibility under Rule 53.08, assessing whether there was a reasonable explanation for the late service and if granting leave would cause irreparable prejudice or undue delay.

The court allowed some reports as supplementary or responding reports, finding a general reasonable explanation for delay due to discovery issues and prior party understanding.

However, it excluded a vocational report that introduced new scenarios without prior notice and a neuropsychological report, reiterating a previous ruling that no neuropsychological impairment issue was pleaded or supported by evidence, and its introduction would cause significant prejudice and necessitate trial adjournment.

The plaintiff suffered a fractured femur and a pulseless leg following a motorcycle accident.

He was treated in the emergency room by the defendant physician, who failed to urgently transfer him to a trauma centre or communicate the pulseless nature of the limb to the trauma team leader.

Due to the delay in transfer, the plaintiff's leg became unsalvageable and was amputated.

The court found the defendant physician breached the standard of care and that this breach caused the amputation.

The court awarded the agreed-upon damages without deduction for statutory accident benefits or OHIP subrogated claims.

This is an appeal in a class action concerning an infectious disease outbreak at a pain care centre.

The appellant, Dr. Stephen James, challenged the trial judge's findings of negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and the application of the limitation period, as well as the award of punitive damages and costs.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's conclusions that Dr. James breached the standard of care by failing to consistently use aseptic technique and to report/investigate infections.

The court affirmed the use of statistical evidence to establish a rebuttable presumption of causation for the class, and found no error in the breach of fiduciary duty or the appropriateness of punitive damages.

The appeal on costs, including the order for Dr. James to pay the successful co-defendant nurses' costs, was also dismissed.

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.

The plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action against a pathologist for failing to diagnose appendiceal cancer from an appendectomy specimen in 2011.

The patient was later diagnosed with stage IV cancer in 2015 and died in 2016.

The court found that the pathologist breached the standard of care, as the cancer was obvious and should have been identified.

The court also found that but for the delayed diagnosis, the patient would likely have been cured with standard treatment.

The court awarded pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages to the estate and family members.

Following a five-week common issues trial in a medical malpractice class action, the plaintiff was entirely successful against the main defendant doctor.

The doctor had crossclaimed against several nurse defendants, but those claims were entirely unsuccessful.

The court ordered the doctor to pay the plaintiff's agreed-upon costs within 30 days, rejecting his argument to defer payment until individual trials were completed.

The court also made a Sanderson/Bullock order, requiring the doctor to pay the costs of the successful nurse defendants on a partial indemnity scale up to the date of their offers to settle, and on a substantial indemnity scale thereafter.

The plaintiff brought a class action against an anesthesiologist, a pain clinic, and its nursing staff following an outbreak of bacterial meningitis and epidural abscesses among patients who received epidural injections.

The court found that the anesthesiologist breached the standard of care and his fiduciary duties by failing to use proper aseptic techniques, failing to report and investigate infections, and misinforming patients about the risks.

The court drew an inference of causation linking the anesthesiologist's substandard infection prevention and control practices to the patients' infections.

The claims against the nursing staff were dismissed as there was no evidence they breached the standard of care.

The court also found the anesthesiologist's conduct warranted punitive damages.

This appeal concerned proposed class actions against auto insurers for improperly deducting HST from statutory accident benefits (SABs) and against the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) for alleged regulatory failures.

The motion judge had dismissed claims against insurers due to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) under s. 280 of the Insurance Act, but allowed claims against FSCO to proceed.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, confirming the LAT's exclusive jurisdiction over SAB disputes and affirming the court's jurisdiction over tort claims against the regulator.

The court also refused leave to appeal the motion judge's costs order, finding it within his discretion.

This appeal concerned proposed class actions against auto insurers for improperly deducting HST from statutory accident benefits (SABs) and against the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) for alleged regulatory failures.

The motion judge had dismissed claims against insurers due to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) under s. 280 of the Insurance Act, but allowed claims against FSCO to proceed.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, confirming the LAT's exclusive jurisdiction over SAB disputes and affirming the court's jurisdiction over tort claims against the regulator.

The court also refused leave to appeal the motion judge's costs order, finding it within his discretion.

The plaintiff underwent bariatric surgery performed by the defendant.

The defendant took down a prior fundoplication without the plaintiff's informed consent, causing severe acid reflux that ultimately required the removal of the plaintiff's stomach.

The court found the defendant breached the standard of care by performing a contraindicated surgery without adequate experience and without obtaining informed consent.

The limitation period defence failed as the plaintiff only discovered the cause of her injuries later.

The court awarded general damages and Family Law Act damages to the plaintiffs.

The appellants appealed an order granting the respondents' motion to enforce a settlement agreement under Rule 49.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellants, initially self-represented in a medical malpractice action, had emailed the respondents offering to dismiss the action on a without costs basis, which the respondents accepted.

The appellants later retained counsel and refused to proceed with the settlement, arguing the email was sent without the authority of all appellants and was merely an exploratory step.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that an objective reading of the correspondence established a binding agreement on the essential terms.

The Court also found no error in the motion judge's refusal to exercise his discretion to decline enforcement, as the settlement was not unconscionable.

A trial management conference was held to provide directions for an upcoming 10-day virtual trial.

The action was proceeding against only one defendant, the others having been dismissed.

The court provided directions regarding the use of a shared document folder, the preparation of trial materials including an Agreed Statement of Facts and Joint Document Book, and the completion of a Report to Trial Judge.

The court also scheduled a practice run for the virtual platform and provided guidance on managing exhibits and video presence during the trial.