In this case, the plaintiff died in 2011 of stage IV uterine leiomyosarcoma (“uLMS”), which had metastasized to her lungs. The allegation at the centre of the lawsuit was that her gynecologist failed to perform a routine endometrial biopsy in 2009 and that, if he had, her cancer would have been detected at an early stage such that her death could have been avoided through proper treatment…
Case Summaries Category Archives
A.J. v. Security National Insurance Co., 2021 CarswellOnt 6104
The Applicant was injured on or about May 27, 2016, and sought benefits pursuant to O. Reg. 34/10 effective September 1, 2010. The Respondent, Security National Insurance refused to pay for specific benefits, including an award pursuant to Regulation 664, interest, and costs…
Moore v. 7595611 Canada Corp
In Moore v. 7595611 Canada Corp, a jury awarded two parents $250,000, each, for the loss of their daughter. The defendants appealed the jury’s award and the Ontario Court of Appeal had to decide whether to intervene…
McAuley v. Canada Post Corporation, 2021 ONSC 4528
In this case, the 52-year-old plaintiff broke his ankle when he slipped on an icy sidewalk in from of a post office in Huntsville on December 20, 2017. He observed a broken eavestrough on the nearby Canada Post building causing water to run onto the sidewalk where he fell. He mentioned the eavestrough to his counsel eleven months after contacting them…
Ahmed v. Aviva Insurance Company
In the recent case of Ahmed v. Aviva Insurance Company, Aviva Insurance Company proceeded with a motion to dismiss an application as abandoned, despite previous counsel’s death and the applicant’s personal barriers, and was found by Vice Chair Maedel to have acted in bad faith. In the result, the motion was dismissed and Aviva was ordered to pay costs to the applicant…
Taylor v. David, 2021 ONSC 3264
In this case, the Plaintiff had undergone a jaw surgery in 2004, and alleged that the surgery was performed negligently and without her consent. She commenced a personal injury action in relation to this procedure in February 2020. The Defendants brought a Motion for Summary Judgment seeking to dismiss the proceeding on the basis that it was not issued within the time periods as prescribed by the Limitations Act.