At trial, Dr. Whelan was found liable for negligence, and appealed.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Dr. Whelan's appeal. Dr. Whelan's expert witness had stated that in 1996, it was common practice to repeat the standard screening test until it was determined whether a high level of phenylalanine was treatable, and that Tyler's results had been "suspicious" but insufficient to require diagnostic investigation, as the levels he had seemed to have were untreatable despite their elevation.
Dr. Whelan also argued that since there was no protocols in place expressing the standard of care in Tyler's case at the time, that therefore the decision was up to his clinical judgement.
Masters' Association of Ontario v. Ontario. This was an action brought by the Masters' Association specifically on behalf of case management masters. When the province of Ontario introduced case management masters in 1996, they were paid less than traditional masters. In 2000, the Masters' Association sued the province to obtain identical salary, benefits, and security for case management masters as existed for traditional masters.
The Masters' Association brought an application for a declaration that case management masters are entitled to the same salary, benefits and security as traditional masters. The application judge declared that s.53(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, which provides the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario with the power to address case management masters' renumeration, was unconstitutional as it failed to sufficiently provide judicial independence to case management masters (who might be influenced by public sector pay rate changes, either actual or potential).
The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals. In regards to the Province's appeal, although it was that the current pay system for case management masters satisfied the requirements for judicial independence of being objective and effective, the requirement of independence was not satisfied since there was no independent body serving as an intermediary between the government and the judiciary.
The Court also made short work of the Assocation's cross-appeal, stating simply that, following Mackin, it was not appropriate for courts to remedy the situation, since there were multiple ways to address the issue and that the choice of method should be left up to the government if possible. Read-the-whole-case rating: 2.5 since this decision mostly just serves to endorse a prior decision at length, but it's still important for the future of jurisprudence in Ontario.