Sabrina Anne Bruno

The court fixed nominal costs against the self-represented plaintiff following successful summary judgment motions by the defendants in a medical negligence action.

Despite the plaintiff's serious health issues and lack of means, the court found that the plaintiff's failure to secure expert reports and refusal to follow former counsel's advice necessitated the summary judgment motions, entitling the defendants to costs.

However, considering the plaintiff's inability to pay and the non-frivolous nature of the initial lawsuit, a nominal award was deemed appropriate.

The appellant applied for a liquor sales licence for a proposed restaurant and programmable art space in Kensington Market.

The Registrar issued a notice of proposal to review the application after receiving objections from residents, the City of Toronto, and the Friends of Kensington Market.

The objectors argued the licence was not in the public interest due to concerns about noise, disturbance, and increased traffic.

The Tribunal found that the objectors failed to establish that granting the licence was contrary to the public interest, noting the appellant's business model was less likely to cause disturbances than existing problematic establishments.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the licence but attached conditions restricting hours of service and requiring signage, a contact number for residents, and exterior lighting to address community concerns.

This medical negligence action, commenced in 2011, involved allegations of negligent treatment by the plaintiff against the defendant hospital and physicians.

The action had been administratively dismissed twice and case-managed since 2018 due to the plaintiff's failure to deliver expert reports.

Despite multiple court orders and extensions, the self-represented plaintiff failed to provide expert evidence on standard of care and causation, which is required to establish negligence.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment, which the court granted, dismissing the action due to the absence of a genuine issue for trial without expert opinions supporting the plaintiff's claims.