Thomas C. Hendy

The trustee in bankruptcy reached a settlement with a creditor regarding her claim to the bankrupt's property.

Another creditor opposed the settlement.

The motion judge found the settlement unreasonable because it did not preserve the opposing creditor's priority for solicitor's costs under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, and he amended the settlement to protect her priority.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge erred by amending and imposing a settlement on the parties, and by giving the opposing creditor's claim priority over other claims.

The Court found the original settlement reasonable given the litigation risks and directed the trustee to complete it.

The appellant doctor appealed a trial judgment finding him liable for a surgical burn suffered during routine electrocautery surgery and awarding general and special damages.

The Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the trial judge’s liability findings, holding there was evidence supporting the conclusion that pooled alcohol-based prepping solution ignited during the procedure and that the doctor breached the standard of care.

The court divided on discoverability under s. 17 of the Health Disciplines Act, but the majority held the respondent knew enough material facts immediately after the surgery to allege negligence against the surgeon and hospital without awaiting an expert opinion.

The appeal was therefore allowed and the action dismissed as statute barred.