PUBLICATIONS

Hemmings v Peng - the issue of remoteness of damage (“legal causation”) in the context of a medical malpractice claim. 

There has been a shift in attitudes towards juries in medical malpractice cases over time. In 1998, the America Medical Association, a professional association and lobbying group for physicians and medical students, explained their position as follows...

First Published in Advocates Quarterly. This paper addresses whether the same principles regarding the “real and substantial possibility” standard of proof apply to a hypothetical past loss claim as they do to a hypothetical future loss claim, and the interplay between the two standards of proof applicable to hypothetical claims: balance of probabilities for the “but for” causation test, and “real and substantial possibility” for damages.

In order to protect limitation periods, especially in cases where liability is yet to be determined, there is an obligation on counsel to identify, name, and pursue all parties who may be liable to the plaintiff(s). However, as the discovery process begins, parties often become aware that they have added in a party that will bear no liability to the plaintiff(s). Often, parties are able to consent to a dismissal or discontinuance without costs; however, there are cases in which defendant(s) will not go out without costs. In these cases, parties can move for a ruling under Rule 23.05...

In Huma v. Mississauga Hospital, the plaintiffs commenced a medical malpractice action against 14 physicians and two hospitals, alleging to have suffered significant damages as a result of the professional wrongdoing of same. The Statement of Claim stated that the plaintiffs were self-represented. Upon receipt of the Claim, the defendants defended the action.

Months later, having heard nothing from the plaintiffs, the defendants inquired as to whether the plaintiffs were willing to dismiss the action...

In Ontario, there is a well-established practice of asking jurors to provide reasons for their verdicts. The jury is not absolutely required to provide this information. There is a presumption of integrity regarding general verdicts; simply because the jury did not explain its verdict is not a ground for appeal.

The exception to this presumption arises in professional negligence cases...

In Ontario, s.4 of the Limitations Act, 2002, (“Act”) establishes a two-year limitation period for a claimant to commence an action, which begins to run once the claim is discovered. However, there exists an exception for those claimants that are “incapable” to commence the proceeding.

In this case study, a man suffering from mental illness and psychotic delusions, killed his son and later commenced an action against the drug company...

You have just been sued for breach of contract by a former business partner.

As you skim through a legal document that sets out a laundry list of your alleged failures and faux pas, a few paragraphs jump out at you. Why does the document make reference to an argument over the design of your company's logo? And why is there commentary on the not-so-secret office romance between two of your employees? As far as you can tell, neither of these issues have anything to do with the contract in dispute.

In a recent decision, the Federal Court of Appeal confirmed that common interest privilege (“CIP”) is a principle of Canadian law. This principle is unlike solicitor-client privilege, in that communication between counsel and a third party may be considered privileged if the shared information is to benefit both parties, especially with respect to the furtherance of a commercial transaction. The court overturned a Federal Court decision which held that that CIP is not a principle of Canadian law.

The concept of medical malpractice broadly refers to the tort of negligence being pursued against a regulated health practitioner for actions carried on in the scope of one's medical practice. A regulated health practitioner extends far beyond just physicians but includes those non-physicians such as nurses, radiologists, chiropractors, midwives, and a whole host of other practitioners.

Medical professionals owe a duty of care to their patients. In Canadian law, with respect to the administering of any treatment, a health practitioner will (generally) owe two duties of care to a patient. 

Limitation periods, sometimes referred to as proscription periods, refer to the time that a party has to commence an originating court process. They are governed by provincial statutes.

The main purposes of limitation periods are to provide certainty and finality, as well as to help assure the cogency of evidence on which matters will be judged: see generally Graeme Mew, The Law of Limitations (1991) at 7- 8. These purposes were well expressed by the Ontario Law Reform Commission in its Report on Limitation of Actions (1969) at page 9...

This paper seeks to provide an introduction to vicarious liability in Canada, the applicability of joint and several liability, and the impact of these general principles in the collaborative care context. In so doing, we will review medical malpractice jurisprudence in which the court considered whether professionals and institutions should be held liable for the acts of others.

Canadian citizens, and those not as fortunate to live in Canada, have the perception that 'uniform publicly funded' medical-related services are available nationwide in Canada and are 'free'... that is what it is to be Canadian. However, contrary to popular belief, there is no unified single professional regulatory, or single-payer national healthcare system in Canada. To the extent that there is healthcare that is publicly funded in Canada, it is funded on a provincial or territorial basis [here-in-after collectively 'provincial' or 'province'] and supplemented with federal funds that are 'conditionally' transferred to the province.

The Court of Appeal has made it abundantly clear that partial summary judgment motions will only be granted in the clearest of cases.1 In Duggan v Lakeridge Health Corporation 2017 ONSC 7340 Justice Edwards found that the circumstances at bar constituted one such case. In this instance, the Plaintiffs were granted a partial summary judgment order requiring the Defendant, Dr. Padamjit Singh (the “Defendant”), to make a further advance payment of not less than $600,000.00 in advance of the trial scheduled for November 2018.

The Plaintiff, Ava Grace Duggan (“Ava”), suffers from Cerebral Palsy which was caused at the time of her birth. It was previously acknowledged by Dr. Singh that she breached the standard of care in delivering Ava, causing neurological impairment. Dr. Singh made an advance payment of $300,000 on September 21, 2015 following her admission of liability.

Today the Ontario Court of Appeal released its long-awaited decision inMoore v. Getahun, dealing with significant issues in relation to the preparation and use of expert witness reports at trial, including the scope of permissible communications between counsel and expert witnesses.

In Ligocki v. Allianz Insurance Company of Canada, 2010 ONSC 1166,,the Ontario Superior Court, on February 22, 2010,  confirmed that a self-proclaimed "self-employed contractor" may be entitled to income replacement benefits calculated as an employee.