Teri Liu

In a medical malpractice action, the plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 31.10 for leave to examine two non-party nurses for discovery.

The plaintiffs argued the nurses had relevant information about the deceased's post-operative care that could not be obtained elsewhere.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the nurses likely had relevant information, the plaintiffs failed to establish they were unable to obtain the information from the hospital's representative or other parties, as they had not asked specific questions or requested undertakings regarding the non-party nurses' knowledge during earlier discoveries.

This decision provides supplementary reasons for judgment, finalizing damage assessments and costs following a prior trial decision (K.M. v. Marson, 2018 ONSC 3493).

The court determined the plaintiff's past and future income loss, future loss of interdependent relationship, and management fees based on agreed-upon expert calculations and applied a 15% negative contingency.

Prejudgment interest was calculated, and a $50,000 advance payment by one defendant was credited against the total liability of both defendants, including associated prejudgment interest.

The total damages and prejudgment interest awarded to the plaintiff amounted to $2,748,513.09, with an additional $400,000 in costs.

A cross-claim for contribution and indemnity by the School Board against the individual defendant was also granted.

The plaintiff brought an action in negligence against his former teacher and the school board for childhood sexual abuse.

The school board admitted liability in negligence for failing to monitor the teacher, and the trial proceeded as a contested assessment of damages.

The court found that the sexual abuse was a major cause of the plaintiff's severe psychiatric injuries, including major depression with dysthymia, post-traumatic stress disorder, and personality disorders.

The court rejected the school board's argument that the 'crumbling skull' principle should reduce damages by 50%, finding no measurable risk that the plaintiff's pre-existing learning disability would have caused his mental disorders.

The court awarded $250,000 in general and aggravated damages, $1,955,000 for past and future income loss, $135,587 for future loss of interdependent relationship, and other special damages, for a total of $2,413,442.11.

The appellants and the respondent insured brought motions to disqualify the law firm appointed by the insurer from continuing to represent the insured on an appeal and cross-appeal.

The underlying action involved a motor vehicle accident where the jury found the insured solely responsible, primarily for negligent parental supervision (uncovered), but also for an unsuitable choice of unloading area (potentially covered).

The insurer-appointed counsel filed a cross-appeal challenging the only finding that could trigger coverage.

The Court of Appeal granted the motions, finding a reasonable apprehension of a conflict of interest, and ordered the insurer to pay for independent counsel to represent the insured.

The appellants appealed a jury verdict dismissing their action against the respondent.

They argued the trial judge erred in the jury charge regarding the Occupiers' Liability Act, improperly excluded them from the courtroom, and that the respondent's jury address was inflammatory.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the jury charge, noting the exclusion was on agreement of counsel, and holding that the jury address was not inappropriate.