Scott Graham

The decision concerns a medical malpractice action brought by Scott Graham against Dr. Sheldon Berger and others, arising from care received at Bridgepoint Health following a motorcycle accident.

The plaintiff alleged negligence in failing to diagnose and treat osteomyelitis, resulting in prolonged recovery.

The court found that Dr. Berger met the standard of care, relying on expert evidence and the contemporaneous medical records, and that the infection was likely seeded before the plaintiff came under Dr. Berger’s care.

The action was dismissed.

The offender was convicted by a jury of pointing a firearm and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose following an altercation outside a bar where he pointed a BB gun at the victim.

The court applied the Kienapple principle to stay the pointing a firearm charge.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for firearms offences, the court sentenced the offender to 9 months' imprisonment, reduced to 5 months after applying Downes credit for restrictive bail conditions and pre-sentence custody credit.

The three accused were charged with firearms and drug offences following a vehicle stop.

They brought Charter applications alleging breaches of ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).

The Crown argued the stop was a valid dual-purpose stop under the Highway Traffic Act.

The court found the officers' testimony lacked credibility and that the HTA rationale was a pretext for an unlawful criminal investigation.

The court concluded the accused were arbitrarily detained and subjected to unreasonable searches.

Given the seriousness of the breaches and the finding that the officers misled the court, the evidence was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, resulting in acquittals.

The applicant sought to exclude evidence (a BB gun) obtained following an investigative detention, search, and seizure, alleging violations of sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court found serious breaches of section 9 (arbitrary detention) due to the prolonged, unjustified handcuffing and de facto arrest, and breaches of section 8 (unreasonable search and seizure) regarding the keys and wallet.

While section 10 rights were deemed not violated, the court excluded the BB gun under section 24(2) due to the serious section 9 breaches, but admitted the discovery of the keys and vehicle as it was minimally intrusive and could have been found by other lawful means.

The Crown applied under s. 715(1) of the Criminal Code to introduce the preliminary inquiry evidence of a police constable at trial, arguing the constable was too ill to testify due to psychological disorders.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the constable was not "unable to testify" as required by the section, given his prior testimony at the preliminary inquiry and the speculative nature of anticipated harm.

Furthermore, while the accused had full opportunity to cross-examine at the preliminary inquiry, the court exercised its discretion to exclude the evidence, balancing its slight probative value against the material prejudice to the defence's ability to challenge credibility at trial, especially since other evidence was readily available.

The Crown applied under section 714.2 of the Criminal Code for an order permitting two civilian witnesses residing outside Canada to testify via video link.

The defence opposed, arguing that video testimony would offend the principles of fundamental justice, particularly concerning effective cross-examination, the right to confront accusers, and the solemnity of testimony.

The court granted the application, finding that video testimony would not offend fundamental justice, provided appropriate technical and environmental controls are implemented to ensure a fair process.

The court emphasized that while physical presence is not always required, the testimonial environment must maintain solemnity and control, and that the Crown bears the obligation to secure an appropriate video conferencing facility.

The defendant, a taxi driver, was charged with one count of sexual assault.

The Crown alleged that the defendant reached over and attempted to pull down the complainant's top while the taxi was stopped at a red light, after another cab driver from the same company appeared to take a photograph of the complainant.

The complainant and four passengers (her mother, grandmother, girlfriend, and friend) testified that the incident occurred.

The defendant denied the allegation, testifying that the complainant made a false accusation and that he apologized only to de-escalate the situation and remove the passengers from his vehicle.

The court found a reasonable doubt based on the fact that four witnesses did not observe the alleged touching, the defendant's credible testimony, and his contemporaneous request to police to review the taxi's video recording, which was not retrieved or presented as evidence.

The plaintiffs moved to add Dr. Peter Law as a defendant in a medical negligence action after the expiration of the applicable limitation period, alleging negligent misreading of x-rays.

The court considered the doctrines of "Special Circumstances" and "Fraudulent Concealment." While the discoverability principle did not apply to the Trustee Act limitation period, the court found that the plaintiffs successfully rebutted the presumption of prejudice against Dr. Law and established exceptional "special circumstances" due to the late, critical, and unexplained disclosure of x-ray imaging and interpretation notes by Southlake Regional Health Centre years after the limitation period expired.

The court rejected the argument of fraudulent concealment.

The motion to add Dr. Law as a defendant and amend the statement of claim was granted.

The accused was convicted after trial of assault causing bodily harm following a senseless, unprovoked attack on the victim in the Church Street area.

The victim sustained severe injuries including a severed orbital nerve, crushed cheek and sinus bones, requiring a five-hour surgical operation and resulting in permanent facial numbness and dental complications.

The accused, with an extensive criminal record including numerous violent offences, was sentenced to 15 months in jail less 9 months pre-sentence custody at a 1.5 to 1 enhancement, followed by three years probation.

The court emphasized specific deterrence and denunciation as the primary sentencing principles while considering the accused's background of substance abuse and efforts at rehabilitation.