Thomas N. T. Sutton

The applicants sought to extend an interim Mareva injunction restraining the United Republic of Tanzania from removing a newly purchased aircraft from Ontario, pending an application to recognize and enforce an international arbitral award.

Tanzania opposed the extension, arguing sovereign immunity, lack of full disclosure, and failure to meet the Mareva test.

The court rejected Tanzania's arguments, finding that by signing a Bilateral Investment Treaty and agreeing to UNCITRAL rules, Tanzania consented to interim measures.

The court extended the injunction, holding that the applicants had a strong prima facie case and the balance of convenience favoured them.

The plaintiff underwent emergency surgery performed by the defendant thoracic surgeon to repair a paraesophageal hiatus hernia.

During the operation, a bougie became stuck in the plaintiff's esophagus, and its removal caused a de-gloving injury to the esophagus.

Several weeks later, the plaintiff suffered a severe stroke.

The plaintiffs sued the surgeon for medical malpractice, alleging negligence in the performance of the surgery and that the resulting esophageal injury caused the stroke.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the surgeon met the standard of care and that the stroke was cardioembolic, caused by atrial fibrillation, and unrelated to the esophageal injury.

The plaintiff sued her physician for medical malpractice, alleging he negligently managed her right forearm pain by failing to properly assess and investigate a bump that was eventually diagnosed as a rare synovial sarcoma.

The defendant physician had diagnosed repetitive strain injury and reflex sympathetic dystrophy, treating the plaintiff with psychotherapy and medication for nine years before ordering an MRI.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the defendant breached the standard of care of a primary care physician by failing to include a tumour in his differential diagnosis, failing to properly monitor the lump, and failing to order an MRI earlier.

The court also found that this breach caused the plaintiff's damages, as an earlier MRI would have led to earlier surgical removal of the tumour and eliminated years of pain.

The plaintiffs brought a medical negligence action alleging that physicians failed to diagnose and promptly treat neonatal osteomyelitis and septic arthritis, resulting in destruction of the child’s hip joint.

The court reviewed extensive expert evidence regarding the standard of care for community pediatricians and pediatric surgeons, the interpretation of diagnostic imaging, and the timing of surgical drainage for suspected abscesses.

It found that the treating pediatrician acted reasonably in ordering tests, consulting colleagues, and arranging transfer to a tertiary hospital when the condition deteriorated.

The court further held that the accepting pediatric surgeon did not breach the standard of care in his diagnostic approach or management, particularly given the complex presentation and possible misinterpretation of MRI results.

The action was dismissed and, in any event, the plaintiffs failed to prove that earlier intervention would probably have avoided the injury.

The applicant beer distributor sought an interlocutory injunction preventing the respondent brewer from terminating a long-standing licence agreement granting exclusive Canadian distribution rights for certain beer brands.

The respondent issued a termination notice based on the applicant’s failure to meet contractual volume targets after an amendment to the licence agreement terminated automatically when industry regulatory changes did not occur.

The court held that serious issues existed regarding the continued effect of a contractual waiver of termination rights and whether the respondent was required to engage in good faith negotiations before exercising termination rights.

The court also found that the applicant would suffer irreparable harm through disruption of its product portfolio, damage to customer relationships, and potential harm to brand equity.

Balancing the parties’ respective harms and favouring preservation of the status quo pending trial, the court granted the interlocutory injunction.

The plaintiffs sought partial summary judgment declaring that no binding contract existed for a nationwide roll‑out of a stored value “Tim Card” payment system and that they had not misused confidential information obtained during a pilot program.

The defendants alleged that a binding agreement had been reached or, alternatively, that the plaintiffs breached confidentiality obligations and a duty to negotiate in good faith after abandoning negotiations and conducting an RFP process.

The court held that the evidence showed only an agreement in principle and ongoing negotiations, not a finalized contract, as material terms remained unresolved and the parties’ conduct did not demonstrate a binding commitment.

The court also found no misuse of confidential information, concluding that the operational data from the pilot project belonged to the restaurant chain and did not constitute protectable confidential information of the technology vendor.

However, genuine issues remained regarding whether the plaintiffs breached a contractual obligation to negotiate in good faith.

Following an appeal that remitted the issue of the quantum of full indemnity costs back to the motion judge for reassessment, the court reviewed the applicant's bill of costs for $707,173.00.

The respondent challenged the costs on several grounds, including hourly rates, time spent, use of law clerks and students, and alleged over-lawyering.

The court rejected the respondent's critiques, finding the fees claimed were fair, reasonable, and proportionate to the complex estate litigation.

The court affirmed the original full indemnity costs award and awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs of $8,500 for the reassessment hearing.

The plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action against the defendants relating to cosmetic facial surgery.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The plaintiff alleged breaches of the standard of care, lack of informed consent, battery, fraud, and vicarious liability.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to tender any admissible expert evidence to support her claims, while the defendants provided uncontradicted expert evidence that the standard of care was met and the procedures were appropriate.

The court applied the 'full appreciation test' under Rule 20 and concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted and the action was dismissed.

The tax debtor owed tax to the federal government.

The Minister of National Revenue issued requirements to pay to the appellant bank, seeking to intercept funds from cheques drawn by the tax debtor on his trust account and deposited into a joint account held by the tax debtor and a third party.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the bank was not liable to make a payment to the tax debtor personally.

When the bank received the cheques for deposit into the joint account, it acted as a collecting bank for the joint account holders, not as an agent for the payee.

Therefore, the requirements to pay under s. 224(1) of the Income Tax Act were not triggered.

The applicant, Labatt, brought an application seeking an interpretation of a renewal provision in a previous sponsorship agreement with the respondent, NHL.

The application judge found that the parties had reached a new, binding sponsorship agreement, a position that Labatt had not pleaded or advanced during the hearing.

The NHL and Molson appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that it was procedurally unfair and contrary to natural justice for the application judge to base his decision on a novel theory of liability that was never pleaded and to which the respondents had no opportunity to respond.

The judgment was set aside and the matter remitted to a different judge.

The appellant underwent breast augmentation surgery and subsequently experienced complications.

She consulted another plastic surgeon who advised her that the initial surgery was performed below the standard of care and that she should contact a lawyer.

The appellant delayed commencing her action until she received a formal written expert report, by which time the one-year limitation period under the Health Professions Procedural Code had expired.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's summary judgment dismissing the claim, finding that the appellant had discovered the material facts necessary to base an allegation of negligence during her initial consultation with the second surgeon, and did not need to wait for a formal written opinion or her medical charts to discover her claim.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing its motion to vary the terms of an injunction.

The moving party argued the decision conflicted with other cases and there was good reason to doubt its correctness.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no conflict in principle, no reason to doubt the correctness of the order, and that the proposed appeal did not involve matters of general public importance.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the responding party.

Following the dismissal of the applicants' request for judicial review of a decision denying them admission to a master's program, the successful university sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court weighed the factors under Rule 57, noting the complexity of the issues, the unfounded allegations of bias, and the applicants' failure to mitigate.

The court awarded the university partial indemnity costs fixed at $15,000 for fees and $8,665.31 for disbursements, payable equally by the three applicants.

A dissenting judge would have awarded a lower quantum of costs with an extended time to pay.

Sears Holdings Corporation appealed a decision of the Ontario Securities Commission regarding its insider bid for Sears Canada Inc. The OSC had found that Holdings failed to comply with disclosure obligations, entered into agreements that contravened the Securities Act, and engaged in abusive and coercive conduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the standard of review for OSC decisions interpreting its constituting statute is reasonableness simpliciter, and that the OSC's findings and remedies were reasonable.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her medical malpractice action against the respondent doctor, who had prescribed Garasone for ear infections, allegedly causing ototoxicity.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings on credibility, standard of care, and causation, finding no palpable and overriding error.

However, the Court granted leave to appeal costs and varied the trial costs award to disbursements only, reflecting the respondent's change in evidence from discovery to trial and conduct that attracted negative comment.