Stephanie Sugar

The respondents moved to convert an oppression application into an action and consolidate it with three wrongful dismissal actions brought by the applicants.

The respondents argued that the dispute involved complex factual and credibility issues that required oral discovery and a trial.

The court dismissed the motion as premature, finding that the respondents had not yet delivered responding evidence and had failed to clearly identify credibility issues that could not be resolved on a paper record.

The court held that the application judge would be in a better position to determine whether a trial is necessary after the evidentiary record is fully developed.

The appellant, a teacher, appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers finding her guilty of professional misconduct for physically and emotionally abusing a special needs student and for unprofessional conduct towards colleagues.

The appellant argued that the Committee erred by excluding expert evidence on anti-Black racism, failing to address unconscious bias, improperly assessing credibility, and admitting an investigation report containing hearsay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the Committee's factual findings or credibility assessments.

While the Committee erred in relying on prior consistent statements, the error did not result in a substantial wrong.

The penalty of a five-month suspension and costs was upheld.

The moving parties, Syngenta Canada Inc. and Syngenta AG, brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As agreed by the parties, costs of $4,000 were awarded to the responding party.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were awarded because the parties failed to upload their costs materials to Case Centre as required by the court's practice direction.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion on consent to extend a publication ban ordered by its Discipline Committee.

The ban protected the identity of a special needs student who was a minor at the time of the events but over 18 at the time of the hearing.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, noting the mandatory nature of protecting minor witnesses and the rationale for extending such protection to vulnerable persons.

The plaintiff, Hayley Szeto, brought a medical negligence claim against her gynecologist surgeon, Dr. Sari Kives, after suffering a bowel perforation during a reproductive organ surgery.

The plaintiff alleged the defendant fell below the standard of care by failing to detect and repair the perforation.

The court found that the bowel injury occurred during the surgery and was significant (1-2 cm), and that the defendant failed to adequately inspect the bowel, especially given additional risk factors like significant adhesions, uterine fundus perforation, obesity, and epiploica.

The court concluded that the defendant's failure to meet the standard of care caused the plaintiff's damages, leading to emergency surgery and severe complications.

This certified class action concerns economic losses allegedly sustained by corn growers due to the premature commercialization of genetically modified corn seed (Agrisure/Viptera/Duracade) by the defendants, Syngenta Canada Inc. and Syngenta AG.

The plaintiff alleges that Syngenta released the product into the North American market without obtaining import approval from China, leading to rejected shipments, a glut in domestic supply, and depressed corn prices.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing they owed no duty of care to the class.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it premature due to the absence of documentary and oral discovery, and concluding that there was a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the existence of a duty of care, particularly concerning industry warnings to Syngenta and the interconnectedness of the corn market.

The Member, a teacher, was previously found to have engaged in professional misconduct for physically and verbally abusing a special needs student, and for yelling at colleagues and students.

At the penalty hearing, the Member sought to admit without-prejudice communications regarding penalty negotiations to argue the College was acting improperly.

The Discipline Committee ruled the communications inadmissible due to settlement privilege.

On penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a five-month suspension, and coursework in anger and classroom management, noting the vulnerability of the students and the frequency of the misconduct.

The Committee also ordered the Member to pay $60,000 in costs, apportioning the financial burden of the lengthy 14-day contested hearing while considering her ability to pay.

The appellants appealed a trial judge's decision to reduce prejudgment interest on non-pecuniary damages from the presumptive 5% to 1.3%.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred by misinterpreting the statutory scheme under the Courts of Justice Act and Rules of Civil Procedure, failing to consider all mandatory factors under s. 130(2), and misinterpreting "changes in market interest rates." The Court clarified that the 5% rate is presumptive and can only be deviated from in unusual or special circumstances, with the onus on the party seeking deviation.

The appeal was allowed, and the 5% rate was reinstated.

This is an appeal in a medical malpractice case where the appellant, Dr. Marshall Zaitlen, challenged a jury's verdict finding him liable for damages to Sean Henry due to a delayed diagnosis of a spinal dural arteriovenous (SDAV) fistula.

The appellant argued that the jury's finding on the standard of care was unreasonable, their explanations for conclusions revealed non-judicial conduct, and the future income loss award was improper.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the jury's verdict.

The court held that the jury's conclusions on breach of standard of care and causation were reasonable and supported by expert evidence, emphasizing the high deference accorded to civil jury verdicts and their explanations when read holistically.

The court also found the damages award for future income loss to be reasonable and consistent with the evidence, allowing for a finding of early retirement due to the injuries.

The Ontario Trial Lawyers Association (OTLA) brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal concerning the appropriate prejudgment interest (PJI) rate for non-pecuniary damages in a medical malpractice case.

The plaintiffs consented, while the defendant, Dr. Zaitlen, opposed.

The court granted OTLA leave to intervene on the issue of the analytical framework and evidentiary threshold for departing from the statutory PJI rate, but denied leave to make submissions on adequate notice, as it would improperly expand the scope of the appeal.

The plaintiff brought a motion to discontinue a proposed class action in Ontario regarding illnesses allegedly caused by the herbicide Gramoxone.

The plaintiff, a resident of British Columbia, preferred to proceed as a class member in a parallel action in British Columbia.

The defendants opposed the discontinuance, arguing it was a tactical move to avoid litigating in Ontario.

The court granted the discontinuance with prejudice, finding no prejudice to putative class members and noting that the defendants' concerns could be addressed through costs.

The court awarded the defendants costs of $71,807.32 on a partial indemnity scale.

The parties sought to settle the judgment following a jury trial in a personal injury action.

They disagreed on the wording of a consent reduction for a past loss of housekeeping award and the applicable prejudgment interest rate for non-pecuniary damages.

The court determined the wording of the order to reflect that the reduction was made pursuant to Rule 52.08 on consent.

Applying MacLeod v. Marshall, the court exercised its discretion under s. 130 of the Courts of Justice Act to reduce the prejudgment interest rate on non-pecuniary damages from the presumptive 5% under Rule 53.10 to 1.3%, finding that 5% would overcompensate the plaintiffs given historical market rates.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against the Member, a special education teacher, alleging professional misconduct including verbal and physical abuse of students and unprofessional conduct towards colleagues.

The Member denied the allegations, arguing that her loud speaking volume was due to her cultural background and that the investigations were tainted by anti-Black racism.

The Discipline Committee found that the College proved the majority of the allegations on a balance of probabilities.

The Committee held that the Member yelled at colleagues in front of students, made disparaging remarks about students' disabilities, yelled at a student with special needs, and physically hit and taunted another student.

The Committee rejected the Member's claims of racial targeting, finding the investigations objective and the witnesses credible.

The Committee concluded that the Member's actions constituted professional misconduct, including failing to maintain the standards of the profession, verbal and physical abuse, and disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct.

Following a 25-day medical malpractice jury trial, the plaintiffs were awarded damages of $1,918,491.96.

The defendant had made a pre-trial offer to settle the issue of damages for $2,150,000, which the plaintiffs rejected.

The defendant argued for a distributive costs award, seeking costs for the portion of the trial dedicated to damages.

The court held that an offer to settle only damages does not trigger the strict cost consequences of Rule 49.10(2) and declined to make a distributive costs award.

However, applying Rule 49.13 and Rule 57.01, the court reduced the plaintiffs' costs by 30% to reflect their divided success and the unnecessary lengthening of the trial on the damages issue, awarding the plaintiffs $800,000 in partial indemnity costs.

This post-verdict motion concerned the deductibility of long-term disability (LTD) and pension contribution benefits from a jury's award for past income loss in a medical malpractice action.

The defendant sought to deduct these benefits to prevent double recovery by the plaintiff.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the LTD benefits were an indemnity and the plaintiff did not prove direct contribution, the City's contractual right to reimbursement for any overcompensation negated the concern of double recovery.

The pension contributions were also found not to be an indemnity and thus not deductible.

In a medical malpractice trial against a single defendant neurologist for delayed diagnosis, the parties disagreed on the formulation of jury questions regarding causation and damages.

The trial judge ruled that the causation question must use the 'but for' test rather than 'caused or contributed', as the latter could confuse the jury in a single-defendant case.

The judge also ordered the jury to provide reasons for its finding on causation to ensure a rational analysis.

On damages, the judge ruled that mitigation and collateral benefits should be addressed in jury instructions rather than separate questions.

Finally, the judge removed the Estate's claim for past value of care from the jury due to insufficient evidence, but allowed the claim for past value of loss of housekeeping to proceed.

This decision provides reasons for rulings made during a medical malpractice jury trial concerning the admissibility of expert testimony under Rule 53 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court addresses objections from both the plaintiffs and the defendant regarding whether expert opinions proffered in testimony exceeded the substance of their expert reports.

The rulings clarify the application of the 'latency' principle, which permits experts to explain and amplify opinions 'latent in' or 'touched on' by their reports, but not to introduce new fields of opinion without leave, especially where it would cause prejudicial surprise or undue delay.

The member sought to adjourn his discipline hearing, initially objecting to the electronic format and later citing medical unfitness.

The Discipline Committee denied the initial adjournment request on November 5, 2020, finding insufficient evidence of prejudice from the electronic format.

However, on February 10, 2021, the Committee granted an indefinite adjournment based on new medical evidence indicating the member was unfit to participate.

Given the indefinite delay, the Committee imposed an interim condition prohibiting the member from teaching until the proceedings resume to protect the public interest.

The plaintiff sought certification of a national class proceeding on behalf of Canadian corn growers alleging negligent premature commercialization of genetically modified corn seed containing the MIR-162 trait before Chinese import approval was obtained.

The court held that the action satisfied the cause of action, common issues, preferability, and representative plaintiff requirements, and that there was some basis in fact for loss, causation, and a proposed aggregate damages methodology despite competing expert evidence.

The court rejected arguments that the class was unsupported for lack of proof of loss, that limitations issues defeated certification, and that individualized damages questions barred certification.

Certification was granted, subject to refinement of the class definition and amendment of one proposed common issue.