October 2006.pub

B E R S E N A S J A C O B S E N C H O U E S T T H O M S O N B L A C K B U R N L L P
Volume 1, Issue 9
LITIGATION NOTES October 2006
Pushing the Limits of Punitive Damages
I n s i d e t h i s i s s u e :
that it was not made in good faith. While the finding of dismissed without cause, one in the wrong”. This is a Superior Court Considers Form “G”
also had preliminary issues to consider. issues which had arisen after the hearing ciples for substitute decision making as prescribed by the Health Care Consent that the test to the introduction of fresh its authority related only to the admini- request was refused. In addition, before respect to all other treatments. Dr. Tay- all parties felt that there were issues of Board’s decision had been reasonable in had not been acting in Mrs. Bourgoin’s pursuant to section 37 of the Health best interests in refusing the administra- Care Consent Act, (“HCCA”), which permits a health practitioner to apply to in the sense that she had stipulated that had notice of Dr. Taylor’s intention to gave them the right to do anything that a medication even if it is in the patient’s refuse treatment against medical advice. Marsden v. Taylor, 2006 CanLII 34214 ian and Trustee (“PGT”). The PGT authorized treatment with Aspirin and Punitive Damages (continued)
sible conduct took place over a matter of there was no suggestion of similar abuse the fact that the plaintiff’s lawyer had phasizes the plaintiff’s vulnerability, the employer’s knowledge of its obligation to accommodate disability and its failure necessary to discipline and deter a the cost of the unsuccessful defendant. to disclose damaging evidence until late in the trial. It then goes on to review the the case of Walker v. Ritchie. Walker cult and settled on the figure of of Canada two weeks later. Keays v. Honda Canada Inc., 2006 CanLII 33191 plated. In the present case the reprehen- Costs Award Confirmed in Bogus Bad Faith Claim
cost of health care services provided the case of DiBattista v. Wawanesa Mutual injured party. An interesting issue arises Insurance Company. The case related plaintiff’s action is dismissed: If costs are to be awarded against the individual severely damaged. Their insurer, plaintiff, should the Ministry also be sub- Wawanesa, resolved the property ject to a costs award? lengthy trial. The trial Judge found the process and retained contractors to The issue is addressed by Regulations the costs incurred up to the date of the passed under the Health Insurance Act. Regulation 552 stipulates that where a In DiBattista, the defendants sought to included a subrogated claim on behalf of In particular, section 39(6) provides that ally liable with the plaintiffs, who pre- the taxable costs otherwise payable by the insured person . . . as the recovery made the Ontario Health Insurance Plan recovery of the injured person . . . or (“OHIP”) After a 70 day trial, a jury sessed claim of [OHIP] bears to the total (6) of Regulation 552 has no applica- fault and assessed the plaintiffs’ dam- tiffs and the Ministry of Health gation to pay costs upon the Ministry. In (“Ministry”), which administers OHIP. tice decided the case of Marchand v. Public General Hospital of Chatham. In DiBattista v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Marchand. The plaintiff’s personal injury Our firm specializes in Insurance, Professional Liability & Indemnity, Media & Defamation, Health & Administrative Law, Transportation and Dispute Resolution. These Litigation Notes focus on decisions, actions and events of interest to our clients. We welcome your comments and suggestions. V.R.P. (Sas) Bersenas 416-982-3802 sas@lexcanada.com 416-982-3803 pjacobsen@lexcanada.com 416-982-3804 chouest@lexcanada.com 416-982-3805 jthomson@lexcanada.com 416-982-3806 jblackburn@lexcanada.com 416-982-3810 rdeswal@lexcanada.com www.lexcanada.com
Game Park Mauled by Court of Appeal
insurance adjuster had a statement from an aunt

Source: http://www.lexcanada.com/data/LitigationNotes_Vol1-9.pdf