Westerhof v. Gee Estate

Westerhof v. Gee Estate

The Court of Appeal found no reversible error in the trial or in the Divisional Court's affirmance; the appeals failed to demonstrate palpable and overriding error or legal misapplication, and the costs award in McCallum was a permissible exercise of discretion, therefore the impugned judgments were affirmed and the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2015 ONCA 456
Parties
Plaintiff (appellant): Jeremy Westerhof; Defendant (respondent): Estate of William Gee and Kingsway General Insurance; Plaintiff (respondent): Daniel McCallum; Defendant (appellant): James Baker; Intervener: Ontario Trial Lawyers Association; Intervener: The Holland Access to Justice in Medical Malpractice Group; Intervener: Canadian Defence Lawyers Association; Intervener: The Advocates' Society
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Heard and Decided by the Court of Appeal for Ontario After Appeals From the Divisional Court and Superior Court Judgments
Outcome
Appeals dismissed in substance; Divisional Court and Superior Court judgments affirmed; costs fixed for McCallum appeal.
Legal Topics
Appeal, Jury Trial, Costs, Intervener Submissions, Access to Justice, Standard of Review
Source Language
en
Civil Law Torts Medical Malpractice Civil Procedure Costs Appeal Jury Trial Intervener Submissions +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jeremy Westerhof

Plaintiff (appellant)

Estate of William Gee and Kingsway General Insurance

Defendant (respondent)

Daniel McCallum

Plaintiff (respondent)

James Baker

Defendant (appellant)

Ontario Trial Lawyers Association

Intervener

The Holland Access to Justice in Medical Malpractice Group

Intervener

Canadian Defence Lawyers Association

Intervener

The Advocates' Society

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Heard and Decided by the Court of Appeal for Ontario After Appeals From the Divisional Court and Superior Court Judgments

  1. 1 Whether the Divisional Court erred in affirming the Superior Court judgments following jury trials
  2. 2 Appropriate standard of appellate review for jury findings and trial judge rulings
  3. 3 Whether the costs award in McCallum v. Baker was appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal found no reversible error in the trial or in the Divisional Court's affirmance; the appeals failed to demonstrate palpable and overriding error or legal misapplication, and the costs award in McCallum was a permissible exercise of discretion, therefore the impugned judgments were affirmed and the costs endorsement upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed in substance; Divisional Court and Superior Court judgments affirmed; costs fixed for McCallum appeal.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and the judgments of the Divisional Court and Superior Court affirmed.
  • Costs of the appeal in McCallum v. Baker are to the respondent fixed in the amount of $60,000 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.