Marchand v. Public General Hospital Society of Chatham et al., (1998) 51 O.T.C. 321 (GD)

• Judge: Granger, J.
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: February 11, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1998), 51 O.T.C. 321 (GD)

Marchand v. Chatham Hospital (1998), 51 O.T.C. 321 (GD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] O.T.C. TBEd. FE.129

Joel Marchand a minor by his Litigation Guardian Richard Marchand, and the said Richard Allen Marchand and Barbara Marchand (plaintiffs) v. The Public General Hospital Society of Chatham (also known as the Public General Hospital), A. Olson, P. Colebrook, M. Want and G. Asher (defendants)

(Court File No. 91-GD-16866)

Indexed As: Marchand v. Public General Hospital Society of Chatham et al.

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

Granger, J.

February 11, 1998.

Summary:

The plaintiffs' medical malpractice claim was dismissed after a 20 month trial. The defendants sought a compensatory order for costs against the plaintiffs' counsel personally under Civil Procedure Rule 57.07(1)(c). They argued that the length of the trial was inordinate due to the plaintiffs' counsel's actions in conducting the trial and that the trial should have only lasted 12 weeks. In particular, the defendants asserted that the plaintiffs' counsel failed to make full and complete disclosure prior and during the trial; failed to abide by the Rules of Civil Procedure; disregarded the rules of evidence and excessively cross-examined defence witnesses.

The Ontario Court (General Division) dismissed the defendants' motion. The court reviewed the test for making an order of costs against a lawyer personally at common law and under the Rules of Court. The court held that rule 57.07 was not a codification of the common law and thus, did not require a finding of bad faith. The ordinary meaning of the words in rule 57.07 could be applied to determine if an order for costs against the lawyer personally was warranted. The court declined to make an order of costs against the plaintiffs' counsel because it could not, on a balance of probabilities, state that his conduct was the only contributing factor to the manner in which the action proceeded.

Editor's Note: For related proceedings in this matter, see 27 O.T.C. 128 and 49 O.T.C. 152.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 842

Duty to court - Liability for costs - For improper conduct - See paragraphs 3 to 9 and 55 to 130.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 849

Duty to court - Liability for costs - For conduct of proceedings - See paragraphs 3 to 9 and 55 to 130.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 851

Duty to court - Liability for costs - For conduct of trial - See paragraphs 3 to 9 and 55 to 130.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 853

Duty to court - Liability for costs - Failure to disclose - See paragraphs 3 to 32 and 55 to 130.

Cases Noticed:

Ares v. Venner, [1970] S.C.R. 608; 14 D.L.R.(3d) 4; 73 W.W.R.(N.S.) 347, refd to. [para. 50].

Myers v. Elman, [1939] 4 All E.R. 484 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 58].

Kelly v. London Transport Executive, [1982] 2 All E.R. 842 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 60].

R. & T. Thew Ltd. v. Reeves (No. 2), [1982] 3 All E.R. 1086 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].

Bank of England v. Vagliano Brothers, [1891] A.C. 107, refd to. [para. 67].

Gupta v. Comer, [1991] 1 All E.R. 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 69].

Sinclair-Jones v. Kay, [1988] 2 All E.R. 611 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71].

Cini v. Micallef (1987), 60 O.R.(2d) 584 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 74].

931473 Ontario Ltd. v. Coldwell Banker Canada Inc. (1992), 5 C.P.C.(3d) 271 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 77].

Drosos v. Chong (1992), 8 C.P.C.(3d) 312 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 77].

Bubbar v. Fabian, [1991] O.J. No. 813, refd to. [para. 77].

Grenier v. Southam Inc., [1993] O.J. No. 1559 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 77].

Aitken v. Aitken, [1993] O.J. No. 2326 (Prov. Div.), refd to. [para. 77].

Chrysler Credit Canada Ltd. v. 734925 Ontario Ltd. (1991), 5 O.R.(3d) 65 (Gen. Div. Master), refd to. [para. 78].

Bridlepath Progressive Real Estate Inc. v. Unique Homes Corp. (1992), 12 C.P.C.(3d) 109 (Gen. Div. Master), refd to. [para. 79].

San Francisco Pizza Ltd. v. Granata, [1995] O.J. No. 1408, refd to. [para. 80].

Worsley v. Lichong (1994), 17 O.R.(3d) 615 (Gen. Div.), folld. [para. 82].

Faber-Castell Canada Ltd. v. Woods, [1994] O.J. No. 475 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 86].

Young v. Young et al., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3; 160 N.R. 1; 34 B.C.A.C. 161; 56 W.A.C. 161; 108 D.L.R.(4th) 193, affing. (1990), 75 D.L.R.(4th) 46 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 87].

Weston v. Central Criminal Courts, Courts Administrator, [1976] 2 All E.R. 875 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 92].

Rondel v. Worsley, [1969] 1 A.C. 191 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 102].

Rees v. Sinclair, [1974] 1 N.Z.L.R. 180 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 105].

Fong et al. v. Chan et al. (1997), 97 O.A.C. 317 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 119].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Civil Procedure (Ont.), rule 57.07(1)(c) [para. 5].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Jowitt, Earl, The Dictionary of English Law (1959), pp. 215, 216, 975 [para. 100]; 1652 to 1655 [paras. 100, 101].

Counsel:

Martin Wunder, Q.C., for the plaintiffs;

Joshua Liswood, for the defendants, the Public General Hospital, A. Olson, P. Colebrook and M. Want;

Burton Tait, Q.C., for the defendant, G. Asher;

Brian J.E. Brock, Q.C. and H. Smith for Martin Wunder, Q.C.

This motion was heard on April 14 to 17, 1997, before Granger, J., of the Ontario Court (General Division), who delivered the following judgment on February 11, 1998.