Ryan Garrett

The plaintiffs brought an action against several physicians involved in the treatment of their son, alleging a failure to diagnose Fragile X Syndrome, which led to the birth of a second child with the same genetic disorder.

The plaintiffs moved to amend their statement of claim to provide greater particularity, while the defendant physician moved to strike the claim, arguing he owed no duty of care to the parents of his patient.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the motion to amend, finding it did not introduce a new, statute-barred cause of action.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, holding that it was not plain and obvious that a novel duty of care could not be recognized between a physician and the parents of a patient in the context of genetic testing and family planning.

The defendant moved to stay a civil action brought by the plaintiff, her former spouse, which sought to lift a freezing order and preservation order previously granted in their ongoing family law proceeding.

The court granted the stay, finding that the civil action was an impermissible collateral attack and barred by issue estoppel, as the plaintiff was attempting to relitigate a final order made between the same parties in another forum.

The defendant's request for security for costs was dismissed as unnecessary given the stay.

The applicant sought to enforce a right of first refusal to purchase a jointly owned property at its 2019 fair market value.

The respondent argued the right was never validly exercised and sought an immediate sale under the Partition Act.

The court reserved its decision on the merits of the right of first refusal but ordered the immediate sale of the property at current fair market value, noting that damages would be an adequate remedy if a breach of contract occurred.

The plaintiff, as assignee of a bankrupt company's trustee, previously obtained summary judgment setting aside the transfer of several properties to the defendant.

A remaining issue concerned a mortgage on three of those properties, which had been discharged by a non-party numbered company controlled by the defendant prior to the bankruptcy.

The numbered company sought equitable relief to set aside the discharge and re-register the mortgage, claiming the discharge was a unilateral mistake.

The court dismissed the request, finding that the discharge was a deliberate, fully-informed decision made to clean up title, and did not meet the demanding preconditions for the equitable remedy of rectification.

The plaintiff, as assignee of a trustee in bankruptcy, brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to set aside the transfer of six properties from the bankrupt corporation to the spouse of its sole director.

The transfers occurred less than three months before the corporation filed a notice of intention to make a proposal in bankruptcy.

The court found that the transfers were made at undervalue between non-arm's length parties, constituted a fraudulent preference, and were fraudulent conveyances.

The court declared the transfers void and ordered them set aside, subject to a further hearing regarding a mortgage on some of the properties.

Following a successful motion permitting amendment of pleadings to remove claims against settling defendants pursuant to a Pierringer agreement, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The settling defendants sought costs as the successful party, while another defendant argued each party should bear their own costs.

The court held that the plaintiffs and the settling defendants were the successful parties and that the usual rule of costs to the successful party should apply.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded after assessing the reasonableness of the parties’ submitted cost outlines.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their statement of claim to remove settling defendants following a Pierringer agreement and to restrict their remaining claim to nuisance against the non-settling defendants.

The non-settling defendants opposed and sought judgment dismissing the action, arguing the settlement terms barred the plaintiffs from continuing proceedings where contribution or indemnity claims existed.

The court held that amendments under Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure should be granted absent non-compensable prejudice.

The court found that the non-settling defendants retained their substantive right to pursue contribution or indemnity through declaratory relief and that any prejudice could be addressed in costs.

The amendment was permitted and the non-settling defendants’ motion for judgment was dismissed.