Wayne Brynaert

The plaintiff, who had pre-existing disabilities including hydrocephalus and kyphoscoliosis, suffered paraparesis after the defendant radiologists punctured his heart during a filter removal procedure.

Liability was admitted, and the trial proceeded as an assessment of damages.

The defendants argued the 'crumbling skull' doctrine applied, suggesting the plaintiff would have become wheelchair-bound regardless of their negligence.

The court rejected this argument, finding no cogent evidence to support it.

The court awarded substantial damages, including $250,000 in general damages for the plaintiff, $90,000 each to his parents for loss of care, guidance, and companionship, over $1.5 million for past attendant care, and over $5.7 million for future care costs, subject to a 15% negative contingency.

The plaintiffs brought a motion during a damages trial to exclude the evidence of the defendants' expert physiatrist, Dr. Anthony Burns.

The plaintiffs argued the expert's evidence was unreliable, biased, and failed to meet the requirements of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the White Burgess test.

The court found that the expert relied heavily on a chronology prepared by defence counsel rather than source documents, failed to review the complete medical file, and altered his opinion without proper notice.

The court concluded the expert failed in his duty to provide fair, objective, and non-partisan evidence, and excluded his testimony in its entirety.

This decision addresses costs arising from a motion concerning discovery refusals.

The plaintiffs sought answers to 13 questions, succeeding on 3.

The court found success on the motion to be divided and, in the absence of settlement offers, ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The court also clarified that allegations of improper conduct by plaintiffs' counsel, not being determinative of the motion's outcome, would not influence the costs award.

The plaintiffs in a medical malpractice action brought a motion to compel the defendant physician to answer questions refused at her examination for discovery and to re-attend to answer follow-up questions.

The court held that written answers provided by the defendant to some of the refused questions were complete and did not necessitate re-attendance.

However, the court ordered the defendant to provide written answers to questions regarding post-event changes to her charting and diagnostic practices, finding that evidence of subsequent remedial measures is relevant at the discovery stage.

The defendant was also ordered to answer questions regarding conversations with a colleague about the incident.

The plaintiff sought leave to use graphic photographs of his injuries, dirt bike, helmet, and the accident location during his opening statement and throughout a civil jury trial arising from a dirt bike accident.

The court applied the four‑part test for demonstrative aids in opening statements and found that although the photographs were relevant and could assist the trier of fact during the evidentiary phase, their use during opening posed a significant risk of prejudicing the jury by eliciting sympathy.

The court also considered the plaintiff’s failure to properly disclose the photographs earlier under the Rules of Civil Procedure but found no demonstrable prejudice warranting exclusion at trial.

Leave was therefore denied for use during opening but granted for use during the evidentiary portion of the trial, subject to proper authentication.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking an order limiting the parties to one expert witness each in the area of emergency medicine in a medical negligence action.

The plaintiff argued that multiple defence experts would be repetitive, increase costs, lengthen the trial, and risk confusing the jury.

The defendant opposed the motion and proposed to call two experts with differing professional backgrounds, one academic and one practicing physician.

The court held that the Evidence Act limit of three expert witnesses had not been exceeded and that the plaintiff had not demonstrated prejudice or trial unfairness.

The motion to restrict the defendant to a single expert witness was dismissed.