In my prior blog discussing how a Small Claims Court trial decision was set aside and a new trial ordered because of the insufficiency of reasons (click here to read), this recent appellate ruling is an example where a Superior Court trial decision was set aside and a new trial ordered due to the insufficiency of the reasons, primarily on the issue of causation.
This was a medical malpractice case alleging medical errors during birthing that left the newborn with significant impairments. The trial judge dismissed each theory of liability advanced by the plaintiffs. On review, the appellate court concluded that:
“The trial judge’s reasons with respect to causation and her reasons dealing with one of the several allegations of negligence are inadequate. On these two issues, the reasons do not reveal critical findings that had to be made, and do not explain how the trial judge arrived at some of the conclusions she did reach. This court cannot meaningfully review her decision on those two issues. The inadequacies in the reasons, taken together, require the setting aside of the judgment dismissing the action. I agree with the appellants that, in the circumstances, a new trial is the appropriate remedy.”
Not only did the plaintiffs succeed in setting aside the trial judge’s ruling to give them another chance to have a trial on liability, the defendant doctors were successful on a cross appeal as well, striking the trial judge’s decision on damages so that damages could be reassessed during the new trial, mainly because of the appearance that the trial judge simply adopted the damage submissions put forth by the plaintiffs with little-to-no reflection on the challenges raised by the defendant doctors.
Farej v. Fellows, 2022 ONCA 254
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2022/2022onca254/2022onca254.html