Ryan Breedon

The plaintiff slipped and fell at a Wal-Mart store, suffering a knee dislocation.

She was taken to the hospital where she was treated by an emergency room physician and an orthopaedic surgeon.

Due to a delay in diagnosing and treating compartment syndrome and a vascular injury, the plaintiff's leg had to be amputated.

The court found that both physicians breached the standard of care by failing to conduct adequate examinations and communicate effectively, and that these breaches caused the plaintiff's injury.

The action against Wal-Mart was dismissed as any assumed breach of the standard of care did not cause the injury.

The plaintiffs invested in a land development project in Brampton promoted by the defendants.

The defendants promised to develop the property into a subdivision and deliver serviced lots to the investors.

However, the defendants never developed the property, secretly used project funds to pay for their personal expenses, and ultimately sold the undeveloped land to a third-party developer for over $15.3 million.

The plaintiffs sued for breach of contract, fraud, conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the actions, finding that the defendants had engaged in a deliberate pattern of deceptive and self-serving misconduct.

The court imposed a constructive trust and awarded the plaintiffs a pro-rata share of the sale proceeds based on their capital contributions, totaling over $10.6 million, plus $150,000 in punitive damages.

The plaintiffs sued the defendant for breach of contract over a real estate transaction.

The parties had agreed the plaintiffs would buy a house with an extended closing, renovate it, and sell it, keeping the profits above the original purchase price.

The house sold for a profit, but the defendant refused to pay the full amount, arguing the plaintiffs had agreed to vary the contract and accept a lesser sum, or alternatively, that various deductions applied.

The court found no valid variation of the contract, as there was no meeting of the minds, no consideration, and any agreement was extracted under economic duress.

The court rejected most of the defendant's claimed deductions, allowing only a deduction for real estate commission fees, and awarded the plaintiffs $212,224.63.