3 total
Class action certification denied for alleged canned tuna price-fixing conspiracy due to lack of evidence.
The plaintiff brought a motion to certify two proposed class actions alleging a price-fixing conspiracy in the Canadian canned tuna market.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendants conspired to fix prices of canned tuna sold in Canada, relying on findings from US antitrust proceedings.
The court dismissed the certification motion, finding no basis in fact that the alleged conspiracy existed in Canada.
The court held that the plaintiff failed to satisfy the cause of action, common issues, and preferable procedure criteria, as the market structure and participants in Canada were different from those in the US, and the plaintiff's expert evidence was based on incorrect factual assumptions.
The successful plaintiffs in a complex medical malpractice trial were awarded $3 million in costs.
The plaintiffs sought costs following a successful 25-day medical malpractice trial where they "beat" a Rule 49 offer.
The defendants proposed a lower costs amount.
The court awarded the plaintiffs $3 million in costs, finding their request consistent with similar complex medical malpractice cases and justified by the defendants' conduct, which unnecessarily lengthened the proceeding and increased the plaintiffs' legal work.
The court considered factors under Rule 57.01, including the complexity of the case, the plaintiffs' complete success, and the defendants' late disclosure and attempts to introduce contradictory evidence.
Physicians found liable for medical negligence for failing to obtain informed consent for elective AVM treatment.
The plaintiff suffered a catastrophic brain bleed and traumatic brain injury during an elective multi-step medical intervention for an asymptomatic brain AVM.
The plaintiff brought a medical negligence action against the treating physicians, alleging a failure to obtain informed consent.
The Superior Court of Justice found that the physicians failed to adequately disclose the cumulative risks of the multi-step procedure, the likelihood of requiring surgical resection, and the risks of conservative management.
The court concluded that a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position would not have proceeded with the intervention had they been properly informed, and held the physicians liable for the plaintiff's injuries.