Court of Appeal | Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

Shaw Estate v. Handler – Court of Appeal Dismisses ER Doctor’s Appeal of Judgment Against Him Relating to Death of 34-Year Old Mother of 4

Paul Cahill December 16, 2025

Elisha Shaw was 34 and a mother of four when she died after being discharged from an emergency department with an undiagnosed internal hernia. After a 12-day trial, the Ontario Superior Court found the emergency physician negligent. In Shaw Estate v Handler, the Court of Appeal for Ontario has now dismissed his appeal and upheld that finding, bringing the family a measure of finality nearly a decade on.

The High Cost of Unreasonable Conduct: Why a “Hardball” Litigation Strategy is a Costly Gamble

Peter Reinitzer September 9, 2025

Offer nothing, force the plaintiff to finance a trial, and hope they fold: it is a familiar defence gamble, and a growing line of Ontario cases shows how badly it can go. In Barry v Anantharajah, 2025 ONCA 603, a defendant who never made a monetary offer faced a costs award reported to dwarf the plaintiff’s modest $16,160 recovery. The Court of Appeal’s message is plain: a reasonable offer, even a small one, is a vital tool for managing litigation risk.

Ontario Court of Appeal Upholds $1.5 Million Jury Award in TTC Bus Collision Case

Margaret Klassen August 18, 2025

A pickup truck stopped in traffic, a rear-end collision with a TTC bus, and a jury award topping $1.5 million for chronic pain and lost earning capacity. On appeal, the defendants attacked the trial judge’s jury charge on causation, apportionment, and past income loss. In Meldazy v Nassar, 2025 ONCA 590, the Court of Appeal found no error and dismissed the appeal, a reminder that an appeal is not a second trial.

A Green Light for Pierringer Deals: How the Court in Cadieux Emboldens Settling Parties

Peter Reinitzer June 9, 2025

The Court of Appeal for Ontario has again signalled how strongly the law favours settlement, even where a non-settling party may face real prejudice. In Cadieux v Cadieux, arising from a catastrophic multi-vehicle collision involving two children, the court treated the finality offered by tools like Pierringer Agreements as the priority, leaving co-defendants to manage their own exposure to joint and several liability rather than looking to the court for protection.

Court of Appeal Upholds Nearly $1 Million in Costs Following Jury Trial in Pye v Di Trapani

Margaret Klassen May 13, 2025

An 18-day jury trial, a damages award just over $1 million, and a costs award of nearly the same amount: the defendants said the trial judge had failed to test the plaintiff’s costs for reasonableness and proportionality. In Pye v Di Trapani, 2025 ONCA 355, the Court of Appeal disagreed, reaffirming the broad discretion trial judges hold over costs and the powerful role a Rule 49 offer plays in the result.

First Court of Appeal Decision Released in 2025 a Win for Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

Peter Reinitzer January 5, 2025

The Ontario Court of Appeal’s first decision of 2025, Kramer v Ballantyne-Gaska, is a win for the firm’s clients. The Court dismissed the vendors’ appeal in full, upholding findings of breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation over undisclosed, non-compliant underground gas tanks, and rejecting their attempt to reduce the damages on a betterment theory.

Introducing Peter Reinitzer to the Partnership

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP August 27, 2024

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP is delighted to announce that Peter Reinitzer joined the partnership effective September 1, 2024. Based in the firm’s Huntsville office, Peter built his practice in personal injury and property loss, completing eight Superior Court trials in his first three years and helping clarify the law in property damage and negligent construction cases affirmed on appeal.

Damages in Negligent Inducement of Purchase of Defective Property

David Morin May 21, 2024

Since the Court of Appeal decided Bowman v Martineau, the case is often cited for the idea that damages in professional negligence are always measured by diminution in value. In this in-depth commentary, Paul Cahill argues that is a misreading and sets out how damages in these cases should actually be quantified, including when cost of repair, rather than diminution in value, is the right measure.