Fridays With Rogers Partners

Ankita Abraham discussed the court’s decision in Walker v. Canada, 2019 ONSC 4578, at this morning’s muffin meeting. The plaintiff alleged that he injured his left knee at a worksite while he was incarcerated in a federal penitentiary.

The plaintiff argued that the federal government was negligent in the maintenance and supervision of the worksite, and also that he received inadequate medical treatment by two doctors which led to his leg being amputated.

On a summary judgment motion, Justice R. Ryan Bell dismissed the lawsuit.

The plaintiff was not incarcerated at the penitentiary in question at the time of the alleged incident. Justice Ryan Bell did not accept that the plaintiff sustained a workplace injury to his left knee. In any event, he missed the limitation period. Moreover, the Crown was not vicariously liable for any acts or omissions of the doctors.

Regarding the claims related to the plaintiff’s medical treatment, the defendant doctors presented expert evidence that they met the standard of care. The plaintiff presented no expert evidence. In medical malpractice claims, a plaintiff must lead expert evidence on a breach of the standard of care.

Micah Pirk O’Connell addressed the Court of Appeal’s decision in Marvelous Mario’s Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co., 2019 ONCA 635. The plaintiff commenced two actions against its insurer claiming coverage under a commercial insurance policy.

One of the main issues was whether business interruption losses are subject to a rolling limitation period. The Court of Appeal held that, in cases involving multiple breaches of ongoing obligations, it is equitable to impose a rolling limitation period.

The question is not whether the plaintiff is continuing to suffer a loss or damage, but whether the defendant has engaged in another breach of contract beyond the original breach by failing to comply with an ongoing obligation.