3 total
A contractual clause requiring departing midwives to withdraw hospital privileges applies to terminated but not expired contracts and does not constitute a restraint of trade.
This case addresses a contractual dispute between a midwifery practice group (AMMA) and three former associate midwives regarding a clause requiring the withdrawal of hospital privileges upon termination of their agreements.
The court examined whether the clause applied to an expired contract, whether privileges were 'held through' the practice group, and if the clause constituted an unreasonable restraint of trade.
The court found the 'termination' clause ambiguous and, applying contra proferentem, ruled it did not apply to an expired contract.
However, it found that privileges were indeed 'held through' the practice group for the purpose of the clause.
The court also determined that the clause was not a restraint of trade under Ontario's formalistic approach, as it did not prohibit competition but merely required the withdrawal of privileges obtained through the association.
The application was dismissed against one respondent (whose contract expired) but allowed against the other two (whose contracts were terminated).
HPARB decision quashed; ICRC caution set aside because findings of patient decompensation contradicted medical records.
The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) upholding a decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) to caution her.
The ICRC had found the applicant failed to attend the hospital to assess a decompensating patient.
The Divisional Court quashed the HPARB decision and set aside the ICRC decision, finding that the ICRC fundamentally misstated the medical records.
The contemporaneous records showed the patient was stable and resting comfortably, not decompensating or in crushing pain as the ICRC had concluded.
The HPARB's deference to a decision based on an unreasonable finding of fact was itself unreasonable.
The Court of Appeal upheld a multi-million dollar damages and costs award for a birth injury, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of future income loss.
Appeal from a trial judgment awarding damages for birth injuries caused by hospital negligence.
The trial judge found that hospital nurses negligently ruptured the membranes during delivery, causing the plaintiff to suffer hypotonic cerebral palsy with serious and permanent impairments.
The appellants admitted falling below the standard of care but contested causation and damages.
The trial judge awarded $5,568,393 in total damages, including $1,881,846 for future loss of income, and costs of $2,201,259.
The appellants appealed the damages award and costs decision.
The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings and dismissed the appeal.
