Your one-stop shop for short pun-filled updates and legal summaries on Canadian health law decisions.
Eight people appealed a decision that certain COVID-19 public health measures were constitutional. The Court found the appeal moot because the underlying regulation has already been revoked. It declined to exercise its discretion to hear the appeal anyway.
Plaintiff’s counsel was allowed to bring a maxillofacial prosthodontist (MP) to the defendant dentist's examination for discovery. The court declined to rule on whether the MP could also testify as an expert at trial, leaving that decision to the trial judge.
In an 11-day medical malpractice trial, the court found that an emergency medicine physician and general surgeon both met the standard of care. When providing care to a patient with perianal pain, their examinations and discharge instructions were appropriate, and they were not required to order imaging in the circumstances.
The Ontario Trial Lawyers Association (OTLA) was granted leave to intervene on the plaintiffs' appeal related to pre-judgment interest for general damages. The scope of intervention was narrowed so as to not improperly expand the scope of the appeal.