John Polyzogopoulos

Subscribe to John Polyzogopoulos's Posts

John has been the editor of Blaneys Appeals since the inception of the blog in the Summer of 2014. He is a partner at the firm with over two decades of experience handling a wide variety of litigation matters. John assists clients with matters ranging from appeals, to injunctions, to corporate, partnership, breach of contract, construction, environmental contamination, product liability, debtor-creditor, insolvency and other business litigation. He also handles complex estates and matrimonial litigation involving disputes over property and businesses, as well as professional discipline and professional negligence matters for various types of professionals. In addition, John represents amateur sports organizations in contentious matters, and also advises them in matters of internal governance. John can be reached at 416-593-2953 or jpolyzogopoulos@blaney.com.

Follow:

COURT OF APPEAL SUMMARIES (OCTOBER 7 – OCTOBER 11 2019)

By John Polyzogopoulos on October 11, 2019

Jump To: Table of Contents | Civil Decisions | Criminal Decisions | Ontario Review Board

Good afternoon.

Following are this week’s summaries of the civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

In McKitty v. Hayani, the court reviewed the definition of death at common law, which adopts medical criteria for death. The two criteria are neurologically determined death (ie. brain death), or the other, more common, method of determining death – cardiorespiratory failure (heart irreversibly stops beating). The satisfaction of either the neurological criteria or the cardiorespiratory criteria result in a medical finding of death. The Court indicated that whether the common law definition of death could accommodate persons whose religious convictions cannot accept the neurological criteria for death would have to be left for another case. In this case, there was not an adequate evidentiary record and, in any event, the appeal was moot (the subject having passed away after the argument of the appeal but before the Court’s decision). Accordingly, the Court did not determine whether the doctor’s declaration of the patient as legally dead under the neurological criteria infringed her constitutional rights.Continue Reading COURT OF APPEAL SUMMARIES (OCTOBER 7 – OCTOBER 11 2019)