Sam B. Rogers

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered costs of $15,000 payable by the applicant to the respondent, to be netted against a prior costs award.

The court also extended the interim relief previously ordered until the end of the day.

The Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent Metrolinx from removing 11 trees on its property near Osgoode Hall, pending adequate engagement regarding the Ontario Line subway project.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that HDI would suffer no irreparable harm as the trees were not historically unique and would be replaced, and that monetary damages would suffice for any compensation claims.

Furthermore, the balance of convenience strongly favoured Metrolinx due to the severe financial and public interest consequences of delaying the transit project.

The Law Society of Ontario (LSO) brought an application for an interlocutory injunction to prevent Metrolinx from removing mature trees and commencing construction of a subway station on the historic Osgoode Hall site.

The LSO argued that Metrolinx's actions required municipal approval under s. 33(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act.

The court dismissed the application, finding no serious issue to be tried because s. 33(1) does not apply to neighboring property owners or to prescribed public bodies like Metrolinx, which are governed by a separate statutory regime.

The court also found that the balance of convenience favoured allowing the critical public transit project to proceed.

This is a costs endorsement following complex grouped appeals and a cross-appeal concerning claims by 28 former residents of the Oak Ridge Division of the Mental Health Centre against His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario and two physicians.

The Court of Appeal had largely upheld the trial judge's findings on liability for breach of fiduciary duty and battery, with minor reductions in damages.

The appellants sought a significant reduction in the respondents' costs for the appeal and a reduction in the trial costs.

The court awarded the respondents the full amount of their claimed appeal costs, finding that despite mixed success, the trial judgment remained largely intact and the costs claimed were reasonable given the complexity.

The court also declined to vary the trial costs, deeming the overturned $1,000 judgment a minor part of the overall proceedings.

The respondents were involuntarily admitted to a maximum-security psychiatric facility between 1966 and 1983, where they were subjected to experimental and abusive treatment programs, including mind-altering drugs and severe solitary confinement.

The trial judge found the province and the treating physicians liable for breach of fiduciary duty, battery, and assault, awarding substantial general and punitive damages.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the findings of breach of fiduciary duty and battery for certain respondents, but reversed the findings of assault and battery for others due to a lack of direct physical interference or imminent threat.

The Court rejected defences based on Crown immunity and historic limitation periods, and largely upheld the damages awards, including those exceeding the Andrews cap, while making specific adjustments for individual respondents.

The defendants brought a motion at the commencement of trial to exclude a late-served expert radiology report from the plaintiff.

The plaintiff argued the report was necessary for a fair determination on the merits, as it analyzed actual CT images rather than relying on previous radiology reports.

The court found the evidence relevant, probative, and necessary.

The court granted leave to admit the late-served report and adjourned the trial to allow the defendants to obtain a responding radiologist's report.

The parents of a one-year-old infant who suffered a catastrophic brain injury appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board.

The Board had found that the parents failed to comply with the principles of substitute decision-making under the Health Care Consent Act, 1996 by refusing to consent to the withdrawal of life support proposed by the treating physician.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board made no error in its objective assessment that the withdrawal of life support was in the infant's best interests, given her irreversible condition and lack of any prospect of recovery.

The appellant, Patricia Ann Smith, appealed the dismissal of her medical malpractice action against Dr. Brenda Kane.

The trial judge found no breach of the standard of care by Dr. Kane in her treatment of the appellant's foot complaints.

The appeal raised three main issues: misapprehension of expert evidence, failure to apply the "ordinary knowledge and common sense" exception to expert evidence, and error in failing to find a breach of the duty to diagnose.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of expert evidence, rejecting the application of the "common sense" exception as it was not raised at trial and the issues were complex, and clarifying that there was no freestanding duty to diagnose in this context given the specific concessions and causation findings.

The appellants, parents of an infant with a catastrophic brain injury, appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision directing them to consent to a palliative care treatment plan proposed by the treating physician.

As the parents' legal aid certificates did not cover the appeals and the matter was highly urgent, the court issued a procedural direction appointing their previous counsel and the infant's counsel as amicus curiae to ensure the appeals could proceed fairly and quickly without waiting for Legal Aid Ontario decisions.

The moving parties, subcontractors on a mining project, sought leave to intervene in an application brought by the project owners to set aside an arbitral award in favour of the general contractor.

The arbitral award included damages for the subcontractors' lost profits and standby charges.

The court dismissed the motion to intervene, finding that the subcontractors' financial interest in the outcome did not constitute a legal interest in the subject matter of the proceeding, which concerned the construction of the contracts between the owners and the general contractor.

The court also held that the subcontractors would not make a useful contribution to the issues on the application.

The plaintiff attended the emergency department after suffering multiple stab wounds, including one to his right knee.

The defendant emergency physician assessed the wounds as superficial, sutured them, and discharged the plaintiff.

Weeks later, an MRI revealed a completely transected patellar tendon, requiring complex reconstructive surgery due to the delay.

The court found that the tendon was completely transected at the time of the initial emergency visit.

The defendant breached the standard of care by failing to properly assess the knee's extensor mechanism, failing to detect air in the knee joint on x-rays, and failing to refer the plaintiff to an orthopedic surgeon.

The court concluded that this negligence caused the delayed diagnosis and worsened the plaintiff's outcome.

Judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff.

The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board issued a procedural order on consent adding the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers as a Third Party to the application.

The Board also ordered that the application be heard at the same time as eight other related applications challenging a municipal by-law of the Municipality of Leamington, and set out a schedule for the joint hearing, disclosure, and procedural planning.

At a pre-hearing conference, the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board ordered on consent that the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers be added as a Third Party.

The Board also ordered on consent that the application be heard at the same time as six other related applications against the Municipality of Leamington concerning By-law Number 79-20.

Hearing dates were scheduled and procedural directions were given for disclosure and the presentation of evidence.

At a pre-hearing conference, the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board ordered on consent that seven applications challenging the Municipality of Leamington's By-law Number 79-20 be heard at the same time.

The Board also added the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers as a third party to the proceedings on consent and set out a schedule for the joint hearing.

A pre-hearing conference was held regarding an application to determine whether a municipal by-law restricts a normal farm practice.

On consent, the Board ordered that the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers be added as a third party and that the application be heard at the same time as six other related applications against the municipality.

A pre-hearing conference was held regarding an application to determine whether a municipal by-law restricts a normal farm practice.

On consent, the Board ordered that the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers be added as a Third Party and that the application be heard at the same time as six other related applications against the municipality.

Following a 71-day trial where the plaintiffs were awarded nearly $10 million in damages, the plaintiffs sought costs of approximately $8.5 million on a substantial indemnity basis or $5.3 million on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendants argued that substantial indemnity costs were unwarranted and that the partial indemnity claim included costs for interlocutory matters already decided.

The court found no reprehensible conduct by the defendants to justify an elevated scale of costs.

Applying the partial indemnity scale and deducting amounts attributable to prior interlocutory motions, the court fixed the plaintiffs' costs at $4,900,000 all-inclusive.

The plaintiff construction manager brought an action against the defendant developer for unpaid invoices totaling over $1 million.

The defendant counterclaimed for delay damages, costs to rectify deficiencies, and return of construction management fees, alleging the plaintiff failed to perform its contractual obligations.

The court found that the parties had varied the written contract by their conduct and that the plaintiff was not responsible for any of the project delays, which were caused by the defendant's failure to provide a completed design and obtain permits on time.

The court also held that the plaintiff was not liable for construction deficiencies, as those were the responsibility of the trades.

The plaintiff was awarded $644,871.69 for unpaid invoices, with deductions made for overcharges and unproven payments.

This is the damages phase of a multi-party action brought by 28 former patients of the Oak Ridge Division of the Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre.

In the liability phase, the defendants (two psychiatrists and the Crown) were found liable for breach of fiduciary duty and battery for subjecting the plaintiffs to experimental and harmful psychiatric programs (DDT, Capsule, and MAPP) between the 1960s and 1980s.

The court assessed general, punitive, and income loss damages on an individual basis.

General damages were awarded to all plaintiffs, ranging from nominal amounts to over $2 million for the most severely impacted.

Punitive damages were awarded in cases involving particularly egregious conduct, such as the treatment of underage patients or the administration of alcohol to known alcoholics.

Income loss claims were largely limited or barred by the ex turpi causa doctrine, which prevented recovery for periods the plaintiffs spent lawfully incarcerated or institutionalized for subsequent criminal offenses.

The defendants sought to dismiss two actions brought by the self-represented plaintiff under Rule 2.1.01 as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The actions involved allegations of improper disclosure of medical information and forged consent, which had already been conclusively dismissed in a prior summary judgment motion.

The court found that the new actions were an attempt to relitigate the same issues, constituting an improper collateral attack and res judicata.

The actions were dismissed as an abuse of process.