Sam Rogers

The appellants, pediatric neurologists, appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for medical negligence in their treatment of an infant with a rare seizure disorder.

The trial judge found that the appellants breached the standard of care by prematurely concluding that a pyridoxine trial was ineffective and failing to reintroduce it when seizures returned.

The trial judge also found a breach of the duty to obtain informed consent for failing to disclose the pyridoxine trial to the parents.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's findings on the standard of care were grounded in expert evidence, the failure to disclose a reasonable alternative treatment constituted a breach of informed consent, and the causation finding was supported by a commonsense approach to the evidence.

The applicant-tenant sought to invalidate a Notice of Termination issued by the respondent-landlord.

The landlord relied on a 30-day termination clause that had been added to the commercial lease in 1997 and modified in 1998.

The tenant argued the clause did not apply to the current lease and relied on principles of commercial lease interpretation.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the termination clause was clear, unambiguous, and had never been expressly removed in subsequent lease extensions.

Furthermore, the tenant had signed an estoppel certificate acknowledging the lease documents containing the termination right.

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.

The approval holder brought a motion arguing that the Tribunal lost jurisdiction to determine the remedy for a revoked renewable energy approval because the statutory six-month time limit had expired, resulting in a deemed confirmation of the Director's decision.

In the alternative, the approval holder sought the recusal of the Tribunal panel due to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that it had disposed of the hearing within the statutory time limit when it issued its original decision, and that the deeming provision did not apply to a remedy hearing remitted by the Court of Appeal.

The Tribunal also found no evidence to support the allegations of bias.

Ostrander brought a motion to narrow the scope of the issues and evidence in a remedy hearing concerning a renewable energy approval for a wind turbine project, and to strike portions of the witness statements of two experts called by the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it premature to narrow the scope of the remedy hearing given its broad remedial jurisdiction and the introduction of fresh evidence.

The Tribunal also declined to strike the expert witness statements, finding the proposed evidence relevant to the remedy and responsive to the fresh evidence.

The approval holder brought a motion to define the issue to be determined in the remaining portion of the hearing and to strike portions of two witness statements.

The motion was dismissed, with reasons to follow.

The Prince Edward County South Shore Conservancy brought a motion for party status to address the remedy in an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for the Ostrander Point Wind Park.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the request for party status but granted the alternative request for participant status.

The Tribunal ordered that the Conservancy may participate in motions but may not bring them, with reasons to follow.