S. Wojciechowski

The plaintiff contractor sued the defendant municipality for damages after its bid for a municipal contract was rejected unopened.

The municipality rejected the bid pursuant to a by-law prohibiting bids from contractors involved in active litigation with the municipality (a reprisal policy).

The court held that the reprisal policy was an implied term of the tendering contract (Contract A) based on the presumed intention of the parties and the need for business efficacy.

Consequently, the plaintiff's bid was non-compliant, and the municipality did not breach the contract by rejecting it.

The moving party brought a motion for directions challenging the validity of his late mother's 2006 will, alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence by his brother, the responding party.

The responding party brought a cross-motion to set aside or vary a preservation order previously granted without notice.

The court found that the moving party met the minimal evidentiary threshold required to call the will's validity into question and granted the order for directions.

The court also varied the preservation order to narrow its scope, finding that while the original order was too broad, the assets in dispute met the test for preservation.

Following a 41-day trial where the plaintiffs' medical malpractice claims regarding TMJ implants were dismissed as statute-barred, the successful defendant hospital sought costs.

The defendant sought partial indemnity costs to the date of its offers to settle and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court declined to apply Rule 49.10 to award substantial indemnity costs, finding no egregious behaviour by the plaintiffs deserving of sanction.

The court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs for the entirety of the action, totalling $540,604.09 across the three actions.

Four plaintiffs brought a consolidated medical malpractice action against St. Joseph's General Hospital regarding defective Vitek TMJ implants surgically placed by oral surgeons at the hospital in the mid-1980s.

The trial was bifurcated to determine liability.

The court found that the claims of three plaintiffs were statute-barred under the strict two-year limitation period in the Public Hospitals Act, as the discoverability principle did not apply.

For the remaining plaintiff, the court held the hospital was not negligent in credentialing the surgeons, obtaining consent, or failing to recall patients, as those duties rested with the physicians.

However, the hospital breached its duty of care as a purchaser by failing to inquire with Health Canada whether the implants had a required Notice of Compliance.

The court apportioned fault at 5% to the hospital, 50% to the non-party manufacturer (Vitek), 25% to the non-party distributor (Instrumentarium), and 20% to the settling oral surgeons.

The defendants brought motions for security for costs against the plaintiff, who was suing for negligent investigation and malicious prosecution.

The plaintiff argued he was impecunious and that an order would deny him access to justice.

The court found the plaintiff was impecunious but that his claim was almost certain to fail because the underlying criminal proceedings did not terminate in his favour (he pleaded guilty to two charges).

The court ordered the plaintiff to post security for costs, but reduced the amount sought by the defendants to avoid blocking access to the courts, ordering $15,000 to each set of defendants payable in instalments.