MacIntyre v. Cape Breton District Health Authority, (2011) 298 N.S.R.(2d) 223 (CA)

JudgeSaunders, Oland and Beveridge, JJ.A.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
Case DateOctober 13, 2010
JurisdictionNova Scotia
Citations(2011), 298 N.S.R.(2d) 223 (CA);2011 NSCA 3

MacIntyre v. Health Authority (2011), 298 N.S.R.(2d) 223 (CA);

    945 A.P.R. 223

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. JA.025

Duncan F. MacIntyre (appellant) v. Cape Breton District Health Authority (respondent)

(CA 317064; 2011 NSCA 3)

Indexed As: MacIntyre v. Cape Breton District Health Authority

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

Saunders, Oland and Beveridge, JJ.A.

January 18, 2011.

Summary:

Dr. MacIntyre conducted his practice as an oral and maxillofacial surgeon from leased premises in the New Waterford Consolidated Hospital, which was owned and operated by the Cape Breton District Health Authority (CBDHA). Dr. MacIntyre claimed that as a result of exposure to heavy metals contained in dust released during renovations at the Hospital, he became ill and had to stop working in his profession in 2003. Dr. MacIntyre brought an action against the CBDHA pleading breach of contract, the Occupiers Liability Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and negligence.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at 279 N.S.R.(2d) 327; 887 A.P.R. 327, dismissed Dr. MacIntyre's claim. The court concluded that the CBDHA breached its duty of care to Dr. MacIntyre in how it carried out the renovations. However, the court concluded that Dr. MacIntyre had not proven that heavy metals were released by the renovations at the Hospital and that heavy metals were the cause of his medical condition and he had not met the "but for" test for causation. The court made a provisional assessment of damages.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at 290 N.S.R.(2d) 300; 920 A.P.R. 300, awarded the CBDHA lump sum costs of $300,000 and disbursements. Dr. MacIntyre appealed from the dismissal of his claim, the provisional assessment of damages and the costs award. At the hearing of the appeal, Dr. MacIntyre made a motion to introduce fresh evidence.

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to adduce fresh evidence and dismissed the appeal.

Actions - Topic 1625

Cause of action - Torts - Tort vs. contractual cause of action - Dr. MacIntyre conducted his practice as an oral and maxillofacial surgeon from leased premises in a hospital owned and operated by the Cape Breton District Health Authority (CBDHA) - Dr. MacIntyre brought an action against the CBDHA - He claimed that as a result of exposure to heavy metals contained in dust released during renovations at the hospital, he became ill and had to stop working in his profession - The trial judge concluded that the CBDHA breached its duty of care to Dr. MacIntyre in how it carried out the renovations - However, the trial judge held that Dr. MacIntyre had not established causation and dismissed his claim - Dr. MacIntyre appealed - Dr. MacIntyre submitted that the trial judge erred by failing to address the breach of his lease with the hospital, which was set out in his Statement of Claim as a cause of action - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal rejected the argument - Dr. MacIntyre's prayer for relief sought only general damages, loss of past and future income, loss of domestic capacity, special damages and punitive damages - His pleadings did not seek termination of the lease, relief from forfeiture, or damages arising from any breach of that lease - Moreover, when questioned by the judge during closing submissions as to how the claim in contract differed from that in tort, counsel for Dr. MacIntyre replied that it was the same issue - In the context of the pleadings and the submissions by counsel, it was not necessary for the trial judge to deal with the claim in contract separately from that in tort - See paragraph 72.

Evidence - Topic 135

Degree, standard or burden of proof - Burden of proof - Shifting burden - General - Dr. MacIntyre conducted his practice as an oral and maxillofacial surgeon from leased premises in a hospital owned and operated by the Cape Breton District Health Authority (CBDHA) - Dr. MacIntyre brought an action against the CBDHA - He claimed that as a result of exposure to heavy metals contained in dust released during renovations at the hospital, he became ill and had to stop working in his profession - After considering the Occupiers Liability Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the trial judge determined that the CBDHA did not do a proper investigation into the potential release of hazardous materials when it decided to renovate - He concluded that the CBDHA breached its duty of care to Dr. MacIntyre in how it carried out the renovations - However, the trial judge held that Dr. MacIntyre had not proven that heavy metals were released by the renovations at the hospital and that heavy metals were the cause of his medical condition and he had not established causation - The action was dismissed - Dr. MacIntyre appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred by not finding that the burden of proving causation shifted from him to the CBDHA - His position was that the CBDHA's statutory breaches, followed by the removal of the demolished building material before he became ill, made it impossible or nearly impossible for him to prove causation - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal rejected the argument - The trial judge did not err by failing to shift the burden on the issue of causation to the CBDHA or to draw an inference of causation - See paragraphs 51 to 59.

Evidence - Topic 465

Functions of counsel, judge and jury - Acceptance of opinion evidence - [See Evidence - Topic 466 ].

Evidence - Topic 466

Functions of counsel, judge and jury - Acceptance of evidence - Dr. MacIntyre conducted his practice as an oral and maxillofacial surgeon from leased premises in a hospital owned and operated by the Cape Breton District Health Authority (CBDHA) - Dr. MacIntyre brought an action against the CBDHA - He claimed that as a result of exposure to heavy metals contained in dust released during renovations at the hospital, he became ill and had to stop working in his profession in 2003 - The trial judge dismissed the action - In provisionally assessing damages, the trial judge concluded that Dr. MacIntyre should be able to return to work within the three years - Dr. MacIntyre appealed - He argued that the judge's acceptance of an opinion that Dr. MacIntyre was capable of working in his profession, and his finding that Dr. MacIntyre would be able to return to work in three years, could not be reconciled with the judge's statement that Dr. MacIntyre was correct to stop work in 2003 - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal stated that "the fact that the trial judge accepted Dr. Baker's opinion that Dr. MacIntyre did not have heavy metal toxicity does not mean that he was then bound to accept that Dr. MacIntyre has been able to work as a dental surgeon since her 2003 examination of him. It is always open to a judge to accept or reject any or all of a witness' testimony or an expert's opinion. During the course of a long trial, the judge heard a very considerable amount of evidence regarding the oral surgeon's medical condition over the course of several years. ... I am unable to agree that the trial judge, who saw and heard Dr. MacIntyre and the expert witnesses, was clearly wrong in determining that Dr. MacIntyre should be able to return to work in three years" - See paragraphs 136 to 141.

Practice - Topic 1458

Pleadings - Statement of claim - Necessity of claiming damages or relief - [See Actions - Topic 1625 ].

Practice - Topic 6931

Costs - General principles - Discretion of court - [See Practice - Topic 7641 ].

Practice - Topic 7117

Costs - Party and party costs - Special orders - Lump sum in lieu of taxed costs - [See Practice - Topic 7641 ].

Practice - Topic 7141

Costs - Party and party costs - Disbursements - Cost of expert advice - Dr. MacIntyre conducted his practice as an oral and maxillofacial surgeon from leased premises in a hospital owned and operated by the Cape Breton District Health Authority (CBDHA) - Dr. MacIntyre brought an action against the CBDHA - He claimed that as a result of exposure to heavy metals contained in dust released during renovations at the hospital, he became ill and had to stop working in his profession - The trial judge dismissed the action - Although the CBDHA had paid an expert (Dr. Parent) over US $209,000, the trial judge concluded that where this expert mainly reviewed research material on toxicology, the time spent was not reasonable - He reduced the disbursement claim to US $35,000 - On appeal, Dr. MacIntyre argued that the judge should have disallowed any disbursement for that account - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal stated that "Although the judge concluded that it was not reasonable for Dr. Parent to have spent as much time as he did and his evidence was not significant in his eventual determination of the matter, the question is whether it was reasonable for the party to have retained the expert ... The judge properly considered whether the disbursement in relation to Dr. Parent's account was reasonable and just. There is no palpable and overriding error which would support any intervention in his discretionary decision respecting this disbursement" - See paragraphs 151 to 153.

Practice - Topic 7641

Costs - The tariffs, schedules, etc. - General - Dr. MacIntyre conducted his practice as an oral and maxillofacial surgeon from leased premises in a hospital owned and operated by the Cape Breton District Health Authority (CBDHA) - Dr. MacIntyre brought an action against the CBDHA - He claimed that as a result of exposure to heavy metals contained in dust released during renovations at the hospital, he became ill and had to stop working in his profession - The trial judge dismissed the action and awarded lump sum costs of $300,000 to the CBDHA - Dr. MacIntyre appealed from the costs award - He argued that the trial judge erred by allowing the CBDHA to recover an increased lump sum amount as the result of an offer to settle that it made - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal stated that "While the trial judge referred to the CBDHA's submissions regarding the effect of its formal offer to settle pursuant to the tariffs, there is no indication that he took this into account in settling his award of costs. Rather, what he did was accept Dr. MacIntyre's argument that a lump sum should be awarded. ... Here, the CBDHA's solicitor-client costs were $700,000. In Founders Square Ltd. v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) (2000), 186 N.S.R. (2d) 189, Moir, J. observed that when the tariffs result in amounts too low to be a substantial indemnity or too high to be a partial indemnity, the court will depart from the tariffs. After referring to that decision, the trial judge exercised his discretion and awarded $300,000 lump sum. In my view, Dr. MacIntyre misapprehended the costs decision. The trial judge did not include a percentage increase in arriving at the lump sum award of costs. I see no application of wrong principles of law nor a decision so clearly wrong as to amount to a manifest injustice that would warrant appellate intervention in the exercise of the trial judge's discretion" - See paragraphs 144 to 150.

Practice - Topic 9031

Appeals - Evidence on appeal - Admission of "new evidence" or "fresh evidence" - Dr. MacIntyre conducted his practice as an oral and maxillofacial surgeon from leased premises in a hospital owned and operated by the Cape Breton District Health Authority (CBDHA) - Dr. MacIntyre brought an action against the CBDHA - He claimed that as a result of exposure to heavy metals contained in dust released during renovations at the hospital, he became ill and had to stop working in his profession in 2003 - The trial judge dismissed the action - Dr. MacIntyre appealed and sought to admit his affidavit as fresh evidence - In his affidavit, Dr. MacIntyre deposed that the CBDHA had never disclosed the 2005 discovery of an uncapped sewer pipe behind the wall of a room used by him at the hospital, and he learned of it only when advised by a hospital employee after the trial had begun and four days of testimony had been heard - He further deposed that rather than requesting an adjournment to investigate the sewer gas which emitted from the pipe, he chose to continue the trial - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to adduce fresh evidence - The proposed fresh evidence suggesting that sewer gas emitted from the uncapped pipe could have caused Dr. MacIntyre's illness put forward a whole new theory of the case - That did not accord with the purpose of fresh evidence - Further, the existence of the discovered pipe had actually been raised at trial and the trial judge was unable to conclude that the uncapped pipe had anything to do with Dr. MacIntyre's problems - The proffered fresh evidence was not relevant as it did not bear on the decisive issue relating to the claim of heavy metal toxicity resulting from the renovations - The evidence also could have been adduced at trial - See paragraphs 41 to 47.

Torts - Topic 51

Negligence - Causation - General principles - Dr. MacIntyre conducted his practice as an oral and maxillofacial surgeon from leased premises in a hospital owned and operated by the Cape Breton District Health Authority (CBDHA) - Dr. MacIntyre brought an action against the CBDHA - He claimed that as a result of exposure to heavy metals contained in dust released during renovations at the hospital, he became ill and had to stop working in his profession - The trial judge concluded that the CBDHA breached its duty of care to Dr. MacIntyre in how it carried out the renovations - However, the trial judge held that Dr. MacIntyre had not proven that heavy metals were released by the renovations at the hospital and that heavy metals were the cause of his medical condition - The trial judge concluded that Dr. MacIntyre had not met the "but for" test for causation and dismissed his claim - Dr. MacIntyre appealed - He argued that the trial judge, having found that Dr. MacIntyre was too ill to continue his surgery practice, failed to determine the cause or nature of his impaired health - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal did not agree that the judge made a reviewable error in not making a diagnosis - To decide Dr. MacIntyre's claim, the trial judge was required to determine whether the evidence before him was sufficient to prove that the oral surgeon's impaired health was the result of heavy metal toxicity - If he rejected that claim, the judge was not under any compulsion to go further and make a medical diagnosis or suggest treatment - See paragraphs 77 to 79.

Torts - Topic 54

Negligence - Causation - Test for (incl. "but for" test and "material contribution" test) - Dr. MacIntyre had conducted his practice as an oral and maxillofacial surgeon from leased premises in a hospital owned and operated by the Cape Breton District Health Authority (CBDHA) - Dr. MacIntyre brought an action against the CBDHA - He claimed that as a result of exposure to heavy metals contained in dust released during renovations at the hospital, he became ill and had to stop working in his profession - The trial judge concluded that the CBDHA breached its duty of care to Dr. MacIntyre in how it carried out the renovations - However, the trial judge held that Dr. MacIntyre had not proven that heavy metals were released by the renovations at the hospital and that heavy metals were the cause of his medical condition - The trial judge concluded that Dr. MacIntyre had not met the "but for" test for causation and dismissed his claim - Dr. MacIntyre appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred in applying the "but for" test for causation - He argued that the material contribution test should apply - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal held that the trial judge did not err by defining the correct test as the "but for" test or by applying that test to his findings of fact - The requirements for the material contribution were not met in this case - See paragraphs 60 to 68.

Torts - Topic 65

Negligence - Causation - Evidence and proof - [See Evidence - Topic 135 ].

Torts - Topic 153

Negligence - Evidence - Burden of proof - [See Evidence - Topic 135 ].

Torts - Topic 277

Negligence - Breach of statute - Effect of breach of statute - Dr. MacIntyre conducted his practice as an oral and maxillofacial surgeon from leased premises in a hospital owned and operated by the Cape Breton District Health Authority (CBDHA) - Dr. MacIntyre brought an action against the CBDHA - He claimed that as a result of exposure to heavy metals contained in dust released during renovations at the hospital, he became ill and had to stop working in his profession - The trial judge concluded that the CBDHA breached its duty of care to Dr. MacIntyre in how it carried out the renovations - However, the trial judge held that Dr. MacIntyre had not proven that heavy metals were released by the renovations at the hospital and that heavy metals were the cause of his medical condition - The trial judge concluded that Dr. MacIntyre had not met the "but for" test for causation and dismissed his claim - Dr. MacIntyre appealed - He argued that the trial judge should have addressed the consequences of the CBDHA's failure to comply with the Occupational Health and Safety Act - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal stated that the trial judge correctly applied the legal principles regarding the effect of a breach of statutory duty in a civil cause of action - After determining that a statutory breach had been committed, he did not find that the breach alone established negligence and proceeded to consider the issue of causation - Accordingly, he did address the effect of that breach and committed no palpable and overriding error - See paragraphs 73 to 76.

Torts - Topic 4637

Dangerous activities - Particular dangerous situations - Demolition - [See Evidence - Topic 135 and Torts - Topic 54 ].

Cases Noticed:

Osborne et al. v. Pavlick et al., [2000] B.C.A.C. Uned. 20; 2000 BCCA 11, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Palmer, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759; 30 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 47].

White v. E.B.F. Manufacturing Ltd. et al. (2005), 239 N.S.R.(2d) 270; 760 A.P.R. 270; 2005 NSCA 167, refd to. [para. 49].

Nova Scotia (Minister of Community Services) v. F.M. et al. (2010), 290 N.S.R.(2d) 337; 920 A.P.R. 337; 2010 NSCA 37, refd to. [para. 52].

Cook v. Lewis, [1951] S.C.R. 830, refd to. [para. 53].

Hollis v. Dow Corning Corp. et al., [1995] 4 S.C.R. 634; 190 N.R. 241; 67 B.C.A.C. 1; 111 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 53].

Snell v. Farrell, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 311; 110 N.R. 200; 107 N.B.R.(2d) 94; 267 A.P.R. 94, refd to. [para. 56].

Bigcharles v. Dawson Creek and District Health Care Society et al. (2001), 153 B.C.A.C. 134; 251 W.A.C. 134; 2001 BCCA 350, consd. [para. 57].

Hanke v. Resurfice Corp. et al., [2007] 1 S.C.R. 333; 357 N.R. 175; 404 A.R. 333; 394 W.A.C. 333; 2007 SCC 7, refd to. [para. 61].

Fullowka et al. v. Pinkerton's of Canada et al., [2004] Northwest Terr. Cases 66; 2004 NWTSC 66, revd. (2008), 433 A.R. 69; 429 W.A.C. 69; 2008 NWTCA 4, affd. [2010] 1 S.C.R. 132; 398 N.R. 20; 474 A.R. 1; 479 W.A.C. 1; 2010 SCC 5, refd to. [para. 63].

Saskatchewan Wheat Pool v. Canada, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 205; 45 N.R. 425, refd to. [para. 74].

Munroe et al. v. McCarron et al. (1999), 181 N.S.R.(2d) 184; 560 A.P.R. 184; 1999 NSCA 123, refd to. [para. 74].

Logozar v. Golder (1994), 157 A.R. 102; 77 W.A.C. 102 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 78].

Maritime Travel Inc. v. Go Travel Direct.Com Inc. (2009), 276 N.S.R.(2d) 327; 880 A.P.R. 327; 2009 NSCA 42, refd to. [para. 86].

R. v. West (W.F.) (2010), 288 N.S.R.(2d) 293; 914 A.P.R. 293; 2010 NSCA 16, refd to. [para. 86].

R. v. Rayner (D.V.) (2000), 189 N.S.R.(2d) 144; 590 A.P.R. 144; 2000 NSCA 143, refd to. [para. 87].

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. (1995), 43 F.(3d) 1311 (9th Cir.), refd to. [para. 93].

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. (1993), 509 US 579 (U.S. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 94].

R. v. J.-L.J., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 600; 261 N.R. 111; 2000 SCC 51, refd to. [para. 95].

R. v. Trochym (S.J.), [2007] 1 S.C.R. 239; 357 N.R. 201; 221 O.A.C. 281; 2007 SCC 6, refd to. [para. 95].

Atlantic Business Interiors Ltd. v. Hipson et al. (2005), 230 N.S.R.(2d) 76; 729 A.P.R. 76; 2005 NSCA 16, refd to. [para. 143].

Signalta Resources Ltd. v. Dominion Exploration Canada Ltd., [2008] A.R. Uned. 353; 2008 ABCA 437, refd to. [para. 143].

Doiron v. Haché (2005), 290 N.B.R.(2d) 79; 755 A.P.R. 79; 2005 NBCA 75, refd to. [para. 143].

Claussen Walters & Associates Ltd. v. Murphy (2002), 201 N.S.R.(2d) 58; 629 A.P.R. 58; 2002 NSCA 20, refd to. [para. 144].

Williamson v. Williams et al. (1998), 223 N.S.R.(2d) 78; 705 A.P.R. 78 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 148].

Founders Square Ltd. v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) (2000), 186 N.S.R.(2d) 189; 581 A.P.R. 189 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 149].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bryant, Alan W., Lederman, Sidney N., and Fuerst, Michelle K., Sopinka, Lederman & Bryant: The Law of Evidence in Canada (3rd Ed. 2009), pp. 822, 823 [para. 87].

Counsel:

George W. MacDonald, Q.C., and Michelle C. Awad, Q.C., for the appellant;

Nancy G. Rubin and Shelley A. Wood, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on October 13, 2010, at Halifax, N.S., before Saunders, Oland and Beveridge, JJ.A., of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal. The following judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Oland, J.A., on January 18, 2011.

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
  • MacDonald v. MacVicar Estate, 2019 NSSC 108
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
    • March 12, 2019
    ...Burgess Langille Inman v. Abbott and Haliburton Co., 2015 SCC 23, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 182; MacIntyre v. Cape Breton District Health Authority, 2011 NSCA 3; Armoyan v. Armoyan, 2013 NSCA 136; Campbell v. Jones, 2001 NSSC 139; Cashen v. Donovan, 174 N.S.R (2d) 320 (NSSC); Andrews v. Keybase Finan......
  • Abbott and Haliburton Co. Ltd. et al. v. WBLI Chartered Accountants, (2013) 330 N.S.R.(2d) 301 (CA)
    • Canada
    • Nova Scotia Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
    • December 12, 2012
    ...(2011), 308 N.S.R.(2d) 38; 976 A.P.R. 38; 2011 NSCA 95, refd to. [para. 23]. MacIntyre v. Cape Breton District Health Authority (2011), 298 N.S.R.(2d) 223; 945 A.P.R. 223; 2011 NSCA 3, refd to. [para. Haché v. Board of Education of Lunenburg County District (2004), 222 N.S.R.(2d) 354; 701 A......
  • Awalt v. Blanchard, 2013 NSCA 11
    • Canada
    • Nova Scotia Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
    • October 15, 2012
    ...the Court of Appeal to retry the case - See paragraphs 7 to 35. Cases Noticed: MacIntyre v. Cape Breton District Health Authority (2011), 298 N.S.R.(2d) 223; 945 A.P.R. 223; 2011 NSCA 3, refd to. [para. 9]. Holland Carriers Ltd. et al. v. MacDonald et al. (2012), 316 N.S.R.(2d) 280; 1002 A.......
  • Giffin v. Soontiens et al., 2012 NSSC 354
    • Canada
    • Nova Scotia Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
    • June 7, 2012
    ...v. Capobianco et al., [2009] O.T.C. Uned. I37 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 6]. MacIntyre v. Cape Breton District Health Authority (2011), 298 N.S.R.(2d) 223; 945 A.P.R. 223; 2011 NSCA 3, refd to. [para. Driscoll v. Crombie Developments Ltd. (2006), 247 N.S.R.(2d) 289; 785 A.P.R. 289; 2006 NS......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • MacDonald v. MacVicar Estate, 2019 NSSC 108
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
    • March 12, 2019
    ...Burgess Langille Inman v. Abbott and Haliburton Co., 2015 SCC 23, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 182; MacIntyre v. Cape Breton District Health Authority, 2011 NSCA 3; Armoyan v. Armoyan, 2013 NSCA 136; Campbell v. Jones, 2001 NSSC 139; Cashen v. Donovan, 174 N.S.R (2d) 320 (NSSC); Andrews v. Keybase Finan......
  • Abbott and Haliburton Co. Ltd. et al. v. WBLI Chartered Accountants, (2013) 330 N.S.R.(2d) 301 (CA)
    • Canada
    • Nova Scotia Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
    • December 12, 2012
    ...(2011), 308 N.S.R.(2d) 38; 976 A.P.R. 38; 2011 NSCA 95, refd to. [para. 23]. MacIntyre v. Cape Breton District Health Authority (2011), 298 N.S.R.(2d) 223; 945 A.P.R. 223; 2011 NSCA 3, refd to. [para. Haché v. Board of Education of Lunenburg County District (2004), 222 N.S.R.(2d) 354; 701 A......
  • Awalt v. Blanchard, 2013 NSCA 11
    • Canada
    • Nova Scotia Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
    • October 15, 2012
    ...the Court of Appeal to retry the case - See paragraphs 7 to 35. Cases Noticed: MacIntyre v. Cape Breton District Health Authority (2011), 298 N.S.R.(2d) 223; 945 A.P.R. 223; 2011 NSCA 3, refd to. [para. 9]. Holland Carriers Ltd. et al. v. MacDonald et al. (2012), 316 N.S.R.(2d) 280; 1002 A.......
  • Giffin v. Soontiens et al., 2012 NSSC 354
    • Canada
    • Nova Scotia Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
    • June 7, 2012
    ...v. Capobianco et al., [2009] O.T.C. Uned. I37 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 6]. MacIntyre v. Cape Breton District Health Authority (2011), 298 N.S.R.(2d) 223; 945 A.P.R. 223; 2011 NSCA 3, refd to. [para. Driscoll v. Crombie Developments Ltd. (2006), 247 N.S.R.(2d) 289; 785 A.P.R. 289; 2006 NS......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Was Lincoln Right?
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Why Good Lawyers Matter What is a Lawyer?
    • June 15, 2012
    ...4 see, for example, MacIntyre v. Cape Breton District Health Authority 2010 NssC 170, af’d 2011 NsCa 3. the plaintif in that case was an oral surgeon who alleged that environmental toxicity created by the defendant’s renovations had disabled him. his claim was rejected after a ten-day trial......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT