|
A selection of some of Brian's significant and precedent-setting decisions is set out below:
Endean v. St. Joseph's General Hospital, 2019 ONCA 181 (Court of Appeal):
Brian was successful in this appeal on the issue of joint and several liability. As stated by the Court of Appeal, "the right of indemnity is not something which affects the plaintiff". A wrongdoer who seeks restitution from another wrongdoer cannot seek an apportionment of damages unless the absent wrongdoer is made a defendant. There is no onus on the plaintiff to add potentially at-fault parties. The plaintiff is only required to sue one defendant who is at least one percent liable. Asa v University Health Network, 2016 ONSC 439 (Div. Ct.): In Asa v. University Health Network series, Brian obtained the first decision from a Court in Canada granting Judicial Review of a Hospital's internal administration on the basis of the public importance of the issues before the Court. In this matter, the Court accepted that the effect on the public at large by the Hospital's internal investigation and resulting findings against his Cancer Research physician clients necessitated judicial intervention. Brian was successful in this Judicial Review application, with Hospital's allegations of falsification and fabrication of scientific data in published journal articles against the doctors set aside, and Hospital's decision on sanctions (only) remitted for reconsideration Quenneville v Volkswagen, 2016 ONSC 4607 (Sup. Ct of Jus.)
In Quenneville, Brian successfully defended a contempt motion brought against a law firm, and two lawyers, arising out of a class action carriage battle. All three of the defendants were acquitted. This matter arose out of a carriage battle over the Volkswagen emissions scandal. Contempt was alleged against 2 lawyers and their law firm. The allegations of contempt were brought by a Consortium of law firms over emails sent to potential members of a class action against Volkswagen after Carriage had been awarded to the Consortium. The Consortium's argument relied upon communications sent after prior findings by the Court that similar communications were against the Court's previous orders. In the result, no contempt was found against any of the defendants. |
|
Katsoulakos v. Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario, 2014 ONSC 5440:
In Katsoulakos v. Assn. of Professional Engineers of Ontario series, Brian successfully appealed a discipline decision against his clients, despite no evidence being adduced in defence of his clients at the discipline hearing.
The discipline committee’s conviction of his clients was overturned remitted to the regulatory body on the basis that:
"[T]he obligation is on the professional association to specify the allegations of professional misconduct with reasonable particularity, not on the member to discern from the general 'subject matter' of the circumstances what he may or may not be alleged to have done wrong."
In Katsoulakos v. Assn. of Professional Engineers of Ontario series, Brian successfully appealed a discipline decision against his clients, despite no evidence being adduced in defence of his clients at the discipline hearing.
The discipline committee’s conviction of his clients was overturned remitted to the regulatory body on the basis that:
"[T]he obligation is on the professional association to specify the allegations of professional misconduct with reasonable particularity, not on the member to discern from the general 'subject matter' of the circumstances what he may or may not be alleged to have done wrong."
College of Optometrists (Ontario) v. SHS Optical Ltd., 2009 CarswellOnt 86 (C.A.)
Successful defence of an appeal from the most substantial contempt order imposed in Canadian legal history.
Successful defence of an appeal from the most substantial contempt order imposed in Canadian legal history.
College of Optometrists (Ontario) v. SHS Optical Ltd., 2008 CarswellOnt 6073 (C.A.)
In College of Optometrists (Ontario) v. SHS Optical Ltd. series of decisions, Brian successfully obtained the highest contempt fine imposed in Canadian legal history, and subsequently defended multiple appeals by the contemnor.
The matter concerned an optician who was dispensing eyewear without prescriptions. The result was a fine of approximately $17,000,000, imprisonment of the optician for 1 year, and house arrest of the optician's spouse for 6 months.
In College of Optometrists (Ontario) v. SHS Optical Ltd. series of decisions, Brian successfully obtained the highest contempt fine imposed in Canadian legal history, and subsequently defended multiple appeals by the contemnor.
The matter concerned an optician who was dispensing eyewear without prescriptions. The result was a fine of approximately $17,000,000, imprisonment of the optician for 1 year, and house arrest of the optician's spouse for 6 months.
Rawsthorne v. Marotta, 2017 ONSC 2182 (Sup. Ct. Jus.); Defence Motion for Leave to Appeal dismissed (Div. Ct. 2017)
In Rawsthorne, Brian (and co-counsel from another law office) represented a plaintiff who had sued an oral surgeon and a hospital in connection with a defective medical device. The plaintiff was implanted with the medical device in 1992, and subsequently had the device explanted in January 1994. Litigation was commenced against the defendant doctor and hospital in 2001. The defendant oral surgeon and hospital brought motions for summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiff's actions were statute-barred.
The Court found that the plaintiff knew or ought to have known that the device was ~mechanically defective~ in 1994 or 1995. However, on the evidence before it, the Court could not find that the plaintiff was aware that the device was ~toxic and biologically hazardous~ until she had retained legal counsel in 2001.
The Court awarded costs of $36,000 all-inclusive to the plaintiffs, payable forthwith by the oral surgeon; and $70,000 all-inclusive to the Hospital, payable in any event of the cause, but only after the litigation with the dental surgeon has been fully resolved.
In Rawsthorne, Brian (and co-counsel from another law office) represented a plaintiff who had sued an oral surgeon and a hospital in connection with a defective medical device. The plaintiff was implanted with the medical device in 1992, and subsequently had the device explanted in January 1994. Litigation was commenced against the defendant doctor and hospital in 2001. The defendant oral surgeon and hospital brought motions for summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiff's actions were statute-barred.
The Court found that the plaintiff knew or ought to have known that the device was ~mechanically defective~ in 1994 or 1995. However, on the evidence before it, the Court could not find that the plaintiff was aware that the device was ~toxic and biologically hazardous~ until she had retained legal counsel in 2001.
The Court awarded costs of $36,000 all-inclusive to the plaintiffs, payable forthwith by the oral surgeon; and $70,000 all-inclusive to the Hospital, payable in any event of the cause, but only after the litigation with the dental surgeon has been fully resolved.
HA v SW, 2015 CanLII 64533 (ON HPARB) and HA v JC, 2015 CanLII 64534 (ON HPARB)
In the “H.A.” matters, Brian represented the parents of a 22 day-old child who died subsequent to being circumcised.
Widely reported in the media, nationally and internationally, the deceased child's "voice" resonated with families, healthcare professionals, and many other people from all walks of life.
Support for his clients flooded in from the global community, ranging from newspaper editors, television media personalities, as well as a broad spectrum of community members in various countries around the World.
In the “H.A.” matters, Brian represented the parents of a 22 day-old child who died subsequent to being circumcised.
Widely reported in the media, nationally and internationally, the deceased child's "voice" resonated with families, healthcare professionals, and many other people from all walks of life.
Support for his clients flooded in from the global community, ranging from newspaper editors, television media personalities, as well as a broad spectrum of community members in various countries around the World.