S. Lewis

The accused was charged with impaired driving and refusing to provide breath samples.

The defense argued multiple Charter breaches, including delayed advice of reason for arrest and right to counsel, failure to "hold off" questioning, and improper facilitation of counsel.

The court found breaches of section 10(a) (failure to immediately inform of reason for arrest) and section 10(b) (failure to "hold off" questioning), leading to the exclusion of the accused's admission about drinking.

Other alleged breaches were dismissed.

Despite the partial exclusion of evidence, the Crown proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on both counts.

The plaintiff, Carolyn Rose Jaroli, sued Dr. Dorie-Anna Dueck, a medical oncologist, for negligence in recommending chemotherapy (specifically Taxol) for her breast cancer, alleging it caused her to develop peripheral neuropathy.

The court found that Dr. Dueck met the standard of care, noting the challenging circumstances due to a lost sentinel lymph node and the prevailing medical guidelines in 2014.

The court preferred the defendant's expert testimony, which supported Dr. Dueck's clinical judgment.

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that her current, long-term peripheral neuropathy symptoms were caused by the Taxol treatment, as opposed to other pre-existing health conditions like diabetes and osteoarthritis.

The plaintiff's action was dismissed.

The applicants brought a motion for leave to amend their Amended Notice of Application to add Sentry Insurance Company, Teva Canada Limited, and National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA as respondents.

The proposed respondents consented to the relief sought.

The court granted the motion on consent, with the application against the newly added parties to be adjourned to a later date.

The plaintiffs, Daniele Marthe Hutterli and Charles Hutterli, brought a medical negligence action against Dr. Douglas Scott, alleging he failed to meet the standard of care in assessing Mrs. Hutterli's ankle injury.

Mrs. Hutterli sustained an ankle fracture but was misdiagnosed with a sprain, leading to delayed treatment.

The plaintiffs claimed increased cartilage damage and higher risk of osteoarthritis due to the delay.

The court found that Dr. Scott met the standard of care in applying the Ottawa Ankle Rules, despite the misdiagnosis, concluding it was an error in judgment, not negligence.

Furthermore, the court found the plaintiffs failed to prove causation or damages, as there was no evidence that the alleged harm (increased cartilage damage, osteoarthritis risk) was caused by the delay, rather than the original fracture, or that a better outcome would have resulted.

The action was dismissed.