Sean C. Petrou

An appeal from a Superior Court decision dismissing an appeal from a Consent and Capacity Board decision.

The appellant challenged a finding of incapacity to consent to antipsychotic medication treatment.

The appellant and amicus curiae argued that the appellant was denied statutory rights advice and that the evidence did not support the incapacity finding.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding that the appellant received proper rights advice as required by statute, that no additional rights advice obligation arose when the appellant later expressed intent to apply to the Board, and that the Board's finding of incapacity was supported by evidence and involved no palpable and overriding error.

The plaintiff sued the defendant surgeon for medical malpractice following a brachial plexus injury sustained during shoulder replacement surgery.

The sole issue was whether the plaintiff proved surgical negligence.

The court concluded that the injury was more likely than not the result of surgical negligence, specifically due to excessive force or prolonged stretch applied to the arm during the glenoid exposure phase of the surgery.

The court found for the plaintiff, dismissing the defendant's arguments regarding non-negligent causes and emphasizing that while a bad outcome alone does not prove negligence, the extreme rarity and nature of the injury provided strong circumstantial evidence of a breach of the standard of care.

The defendant, Dr. Allan Wojciech Jackiewicz, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' medical malpractice action, arguing it was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiffs alleged negligence during a surgery in January 2010, claiming they only discovered malpractice after a 2019 news article.

The court found that the plaintiffs had sufficient material facts by December 2010, and certainly by 2012-2013, to infer a plausible claim of liability, including knowledge of surgical complications, a non-consented procedure, and a 2010 news article about the defendant's professional misconduct.

The court ruled that the 2019 article provided no new material facts relevant to their specific claim and that the plaintiffs failed to act with reasonable diligence.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the action was dismissed as statute-barred.

The plaintiff in a medical malpractice action moved to consolidate his action with two other related actions: a motor vehicle accident (MVA) action in which he was the defendant, and a long-term disability (LTD) action brought by the MVA plaintiff.

The court applied the test for consolidation under Rule 6.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Finding significant overlap between the MVA and LTD actions, the court ordered them to be tried together.

However, due to the early procedural stage of the malpractice action and the prejudice delay would cause to the MVA plaintiff's income loss claim under the Insurance Act, the court declined to strictly consolidate the malpractice action, ordering it to be tried with the others only if it is ready in time.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment in an occupiers' liability claim arising from the plaintiff's fall at their shopping plaza.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding whether the defendants breached their duty of care under the Occupiers' Liability Act.

Expert evidence indicated the curb was ordinary, in good repair, clearly visible, and complied with applicable standards.

The court concluded that the curb did not pose an unreasonable risk and that the defendants had discharged their duty.

Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, and the plaintiff's action was dismissed.

Costs were awarded to the defendants on a partial indemnity basis.