Martin v. Glaze-Bloc Products Inc.
The trial judge did not commit legal error and, faced with substantial conflicting expert evidence that undermined the plaintiff's five-step causation theory and showed no association between TCE and the neural tube defect, was entitled to reject the plaintiff's causation evidence; the Resurfice exceptional approach...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2008 ONCA 377
- Parties
- Appellant: THOMAS MARTIN (infant); Appellant: TOM MARTIN (Litigation Guardian); Appellant: ALAINA MARTIN; Respondent: GLAZE-BLOC PRODUCTS INC.; Respondent: THOMAS GURD BELTON; Respondent: DEAN JOHN BROWNE; Respondent: JOHN BALDWIN SPRATT; Respondent: CHARLES HOWARD SPRATT
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 13 May 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Superior Court Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Causation, Standard of Review, Expert Evidence, Application of Resurfice/hanke Exceptional Approach, Epidemiological Study Evaluation (logman Study)
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
THOMAS MARTIN (infant)
Appellant
TOM MARTIN (Litigation Guardian)
Appellant
ALAINA MARTIN
Appellant
GLAZE-BLOC PRODUCTS INC.
Respondent
THOMAS GURD BELTON
Respondent
DEAN JOHN BROWNE
Respondent
JOHN BALDWIN SPRATT
Respondent
CHARLES HOWARD SPRATT
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Superior Court Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge erred in rejecting the plaintiff's causation theory
- 2 Whether the exceptional approach from Resurfice v. Hanke should have been applied
- 3 Whether the trial judge improperly treated or discounted the Logman epidemiological study
Ratio Decidendi
The trial judge did not commit legal error and, faced with substantial conflicting expert evidence that undermined the plaintiff's five-step causation theory and showed no association between TCE and the neural tube defect, was entitled to reject the plaintiff's causation evidence; the Resurfice exceptional approach did not apply and the Logman study could be discounted for methodological weaknesses.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs fixed at $20,000 inclusive of disbursements and G.S.T.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Martin v. Glaze-Bloc Products Inc. Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2008-05-13 Neutral citation 2008 ONCA 377 Docket numbers C46803 Judges Rosenberg, Marc; Lang, Susan Elizabeth; Epstein, Gloria Jean Subject Civil Decision Content CITATION: Martin v. Glaze-Bloc Products Inc., 2008 ONCA 377 DATE: 20080513 DOCKET: C46803 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO ROSENBERG, LANG and EPSTEIN JJ.A. BETWEEN: THOMAS MARTIN, an infant by his Litigation Guardian, TOM MARTIN, ALAINA MARTIN, and the said TOM MARTIN Appellants and GLAZE-BLOC PRODUCTS INC., THOMAS GURD BELTON, DEAN JOHN BROWNE, JOHN BALDWIN SPRATT, CHARLES HOWARD SPRATT Respondents Lawrence Greenspon and Cheryl Letourneau for the appellants Brian C. Elkin and Mary Delli Quadri for the respondents Heard and released orally: May 8, 2008 On appeal from the judgment of Justice Gerald Morin of the Superior Court of Justice dated February 8, 2007. ENDORSEMENT [1] The standard of review is important in this case. Absent legal error, and there were none, this court can only intervene where there is a palpable and overriding error. It is not open to this court to retry the case. [2] Appellant’s counsel has carefully taken us through the crucial parts of the plaintiff’s case and in particular the theory of causation posited by Dr. Forkert. The trial judge did not accept the plaintiff’s theory of causation. There was a substantial body of expert evidence casting doubt on several of the five steps underlying Dr. Forkert’s theory. It was therefore open to the trial judge to reject the plaintiff’s theory. This was not a case where the exceptional approach set out in Resurfice Corp. v. Hanke, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 333, needed to be applied. Again, there was a substantial body of evidence accepted by the trial judge that showed there is no association between TCE and the severe neural tube defect that occurred in this case. Put another way, this is not a case where the limits of scientific knowledge prevented the plaintiff from establishing causation on the normal but-for standard. [3] Finally, we see no error in the trial judge’s treatment of the Logman study. It was open to the defendant to demonstrate weaknesses in the study that undermined its validity and more importantly its application to this case. The trial judge was entitled to discount its value based on those weaknesses. [4] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs fixed in the amount of $20,000 inclusive of disbursements and G.S.T. Signed: “M. Rosenberg J.A.” “S.E. Lang J.A.” “G. Epstein J.A.”