Facebook In Personal Injury Actions
Time and time again lawyers acting for Plaintiff's in personal injury actions are facing the dilemma posed by Facebook. The Globe and Mail reported today, Facebook Foils Canadian Lawsuits. This has been a growing trend since 2007 where a number of courts have produced Plaintiff's personal Facebook profiles.
In a lawsuit the court can order various documentation about a Plaintiff both pre and post accident. It has become customary that certain information is almost always produced. For example, clinical notes and records from treating physicians, income tax returns, employment file etc. However, in some cases photographs are requested depicting and or showing the Plaintiff engaging in various sorts of activities.
It then stems, that there are few options for the Plaintiff in a lawsuit to resist producing a Facebook profile. Moreover, given the recent precedent from Courts across Ontario a Plaintiff is obliged to produce his or her profile.
The comments on the Globe and Mail site are interesting and really hate on Plaintiff's and their lawyers.
Keep in mind that these rulings would also apply to Twitter pages, My Space pages or any other forms of Blogs.
Ontario Court Status Hearings
Court rules can be very perplexing and the obligations imposed can be onerous. If a Plaintiff has commenced a legal action in Ontario sometime after a certain period you can expect to receive a notice from the court. The notice is typically delivered two years after the commencement of an action and it's referred to as a Status Hearing. Normally, the parties are required to attend before the court and report where the matter is at. Status Hearings can become very time consuming and often the Plaintiff almost always through inadvertence has the action dismissed. This usually requires bringing an official motion before the court to reinstate the matter. While in most cases the action is unopposed and reinstated there are many situations where the Defendant's oppose the motion.
A recent reported decision, Gorouvein v. Toronto Transit Commission 94 O.R. (3d) 225 involved just that. The Defendant TTC was opposing the Plaintiff's motion to reinstate the action. The action started in 2005 and the Plaintiff failed to comply with the timetable to set the matter down by August 15, 2008. The court allowed the Plaintiff to reinstate the matter. However, costs were still given to the Defendant and this was largely due to the Plaintiff's deficient motion material causing the court to rely on the Defendant's material to determine what happened.
Plaintiff counsel had attributed the inadvertence to a clerical error. Nonetheless, Plaintiff counsel must have breathed a sigh of relief. Having an action dismissed while in the carriage of a lawyer can be very distressing as it could have the potential of a negligence claim against the solicitor of record.
Patient abandoned just prior to surgery
It was reported in New York that two of the cities’ biggest brain surgeons abandoned a woman who was prepped and ready to proceed with surgery. The women was on the surgical table had been given anesthesia and had her head shaved for the procedure. When staff started to look around they were unable to find the doctor who was responsible for the surgery. The staff then requested another doctor at the facility to perform the surgery who refused.
The complete story can be found here.
Khadr v. Canada (Prime Minister)
Khadr v. Canada (Prime Minister), [2009] F.C.J. No. 462 is an unprecedented judgment by the Federal Court of Canada. Justice James O'Reilly ordered the Harper government to intervene and bring Khadr home. Finally, a court has spoken up against the incredible injustice faced by Khadr. As quoted from Lawyers Weekly:
Justice James O'Reilly ruled on April 23 that the Charter's s. 7 guarantee that the state may not deprive a person of his life, liberty and security of the person, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, obliges Canada "to protect Mr. Khadr by taking appropriate steps to ensure that his treatment" at the high-security U.S. military facility in Cuba accords with human rights norms enshrined in the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention against Torture.
This is a huge win for Khadr's lawyers who have been requesting assistance from the Harper government. It will be interesting to see whether Harper will choose to abide by the courts decision. More interesting, has always been the silence from the Liberal majority on this issue.
The Canadian government has an obligation to ensure that it's citizens are not subject to torture and inhumane treatment.
Bravo to Justice O'Reilly for finally standing up.
Khadr v. Canada (Prime Minister), [2009] F.C.J. No. 462
Swimming Pool Accidents
With the summer season approaching the number of swimming pool accidents rise, no surprise. In the case of Pioneer Family Pools (Hamilton) Inc. v. Walford [2007] S.C.C.A. No. 599, leave to appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Canada. Walford was a case where the Plaintiff had purchased a slide for their swimming pool. Walford consulted with the pool company employees as to whether it was okay to install the slide and whether it was safe. The pool employees advised her that it was fine. The day after the installation Walford's, fifteen year old daughter went down the slide and hit her head on the bottom of the pool. She was rendered a quadriplegic and now requires care for the rest of life.
The trial Judge dismissed the Plaintiff's action against all Defendant's. The trial Judge based his decision on the fact that the pool company employees had been truthful and not misleading because the slide was safe to use if certain conditions were followed.
The Ontario Court of Appeal, Walford v. Pioneer Family Pools (Hamilton) Inc., (2007) 87 O.R. 3d 281 (Ont. C.A.) allowed the Plaintiff's appeal in a 2 to 1 decision and reversed the trial Judge's findings. The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge, "had made an error in finding no breach of duty by Pioneer (pool company) for failure to warn and negligent misrepresentation. It further held that the trial judge had misapplied the standard of care."
Finally, the Court found that Pioneer's negligence caused the Plaintiff's injuries due to the fact that Walford had testified at trial that, "she would not have used the slide if Pioneer had warned her of the dangers of using the slide, " Furthermore, that the pool company, "was an expert in it's field" and that Walford, "relied on it's expertise." The pool employees, "failed to give her adequate warning about the dangers of her new slide."
This case has expanded possible Defendants in swimming pool cases. While traditionally a cause of action would typically be pursuant to the Occupiers Liability Act. In this case the Plaintiff was successful in her cause of action against the Defenant's for shoddy advice.
Doctor Leaves Dead Man
Hospitals are notorious for keeping patients waiting in the emergency room for hours. Just take a trip down to a local hospital and you will soon understand what I am talking about. People have ended up waiting in emergency rooms from 2 to 8 hours. Only then to be attended to by a rude nurse or medical doctor who dismisses your concern with little regard. This seems to be the state of the current Ontario health system.
However, nothing can be as worse as the story out of Montreal reported by the Globe and Mail on Thursday April 23, 2009.
A 77 year old man attended at a private medical clinic in Montreal and was told to wait his turn. While waiting his heart stopped and his dentures fell out onto the floor. The doctor came out performed a simple check up, realized he had died and simply left him. The doctor made no attempt to revive the patient and instead instructed the nurse to call 911 and walked away as patients in the waiting room looked on with horror.
$17 Million Dollars Awarded To Plaintiff
The Toronto Star reported today one of the largest personal injury settlements for a motor vehicle accident ever. A seriously brain injured Plaintiff was awarded $17 million dollars in a Jury trial. One of the reasons the Plaintiff was able to collect such a large award was that the accident was with a leased furniture truck company belonging to Ford Motor Credit. The policy that Ford held had almost $20 to $25 million dollars.
Such a verdict does not usually occur since the vast majority of people in Ontario only carry an auto insurance policy with $1 million dollar limits and only some have $2 million dollars.
In this case the verdict was based on a finding of 61 percent liability on the Defendant truck when making the left turn and 39 percent on the Plaintiff for speeding up and attempting to cross the amber light versus stopping.
I suspect given the large sum of money the Defendant might appeal. However, given the fact that the Jury decided on the $17 million dollars it seems the Defendant would have a high hurdle to cross to satisfy even leave to appeal.
The Maple Leaf Scandal Continues
A new report by the union representing inspectors in the Maple Leaf food scandal places blame on the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
The Toronto Star reported:
Inadequate resources, staff shortages and overtime bans on federal inspectors have prevented the mandatory annual safety audits from being completed, says the union, which has sent its briefing note to members of a federal subcommittee investigating the listeria outbreak.
The note by the union rep stated that to meet the requirements set by CIFA is, “mission impossible.”
Apparently, many overworked inspectors simply didn’t have the time to ensure adequate reviews and a great deal of the inspection was left to plant staff. The inspector responsible for Maple Leaf was also, “responsible for seven facilities at the time of the listeriosis outbreak.”
The Toronto Star also reported:
Cost-cutting measures at the food inspection agency included banning overtime for inspectors before last summer's tragedy, the note says. "As a result, CFIA inspectors were unable to verify that pre-operation and sanitation inspections at ready-to-eat meat processing plants in Ontario and Quebec were properly conducted by plant employees, including at the Maple Leaf plant."
In a civil action CIFA might also have to be named if not already done so in light of this new note by the union representative. While CIFA might set industry standards they are rendered useless if their own personnel are unable to comply.
This story will continue for sometime.
The Toronto Star article can be found here: http://www.thestar.com/article/621085
Passed Threshold
Neck pain, intermittent occipital headaches, pain in the left shoulder, low back pain, depression, lack of sleep - while she can work and attend to her personal needs and grooming, she more often than not returns home from work effectively unable to do anything but lie down as a result of the pain - her usual activities of daily living outside of work, such as they were, have been curtailed markedly.
The Motion’s Judge found that the Plaintiff sustained a permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function. Section 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act reads as follows:
The owner of an automobile, the occupants of an automobile and any person present at the incident are not liable in an action in Ontario for damages for non-pecuniary loss… from bodily injury or death arising directly or indirectly from the use or operation of the automobile, unless as a result of the use or operation of the automobile the injured person has died or has sustained,
(a) permanent serious disfigurement; or
(b) permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function.
Therefore, the Plaintiff passed threshold. Damages were assessed at $22, 500.
Rio v. Lawrence
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2009/2009canlii6833/2009canlii6833.html
Hand Hygiene Is Important
A Microbiologist tells the BBC that children under five should not touch animals at petting farms due to the recent outbreak of e-coli in the UK. If you are planning on visiting a petting farm good hand hygiene should always be a safety priority.
The article can be found here.