William Clifford Worden

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion to compel answers to questions refused during cross-examination on an affidavit.

The underlying action is a proposed class action regarding a birth control device, and the affidavit was filed in response to the defendants' motion to stay the Ontario proceeding.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the issues regarding the refusals were specific to the stay motion and did not transcend the interests of the parties to involve matters of general or public importance.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal regarding a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind turbine project, the successful respondent sought costs of $20,000.

The appellant argued no costs should be awarded as he was a public interest litigant and the appeal raised a novel issue.

The Divisional Court rejected these arguments, noting that private landowners challenging REAs are not public interest litigants and the appeal did not raise a novel issue.

The court fixed costs payable by the appellant to the respondent at $10,000.

The defendants brought a refusals motion to compel the plaintiff's counsel, Mr. Tuovi, to answer questions during cross-examination on his affidavit.

The questions related to the internal workings, formation, and strategic decisions of a consortium of class counsel prosecuting multi-jurisdictional class actions against the defendants.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the questions were irrelevant to the underlying motion to stay the Ontario action and that, even if raised in the affidavit, the court had discretion not to compel answers to irrelevant questions, particularly those delving into privileged internal communications of the consortium.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing its application to declare invalid and set aside two building permits issued for a nine-storey transitional housing and shelter building.

The appellant argued the Chief Building Official erred in classifying the proposed use as a 'hostel' rather than a 'crisis care facility' under the zoning by-law, and that the pending Municipal Shelter By-law appeal should have prevented the permits' issuance.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's acceptance of the CBO's zoning compliance determination or the finding that the pending by-law appeal did not constitute 'applicable law' preventing the permits' issuance.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing their action against the respondent doctor.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that summary judgment is generally inappropriate when the rule of discoverability is central to a limitation issue and facts are in dispute.

Furthermore, the court held that a claim for breach of fiduciary duty is not related to a claim for malpractice in respect of professional services and is therefore not subject to the limitation period in the Regulated Health Professions Act.

The appellant doctor performed cosmetic surgery on the respondent's eyelid.

The respondent suffered complications and required revisionary surgeries.

She sued for negligence based on a lack of informed consent.

The trial judge found that a reasonable person in the respondent's position, if informed of the material risks, would not have proceeded with the surgery at that time due to her financial situation and career plans.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the doctor's appeal, holding that the trial judge correctly applied the modified objective test for causation from Reibl v. Hughes, properly considering the respondent's special circumstances.