The Court ordered that it was just and convenient to conduct examinations for discovery by way of video conference based on Rule 1.04 and Rule 37.04. The Midland decision clearly states that where a party resides outside of Ontario, neither party has a prima facie right with respect to the place of examination. Equally, there is no presumption for or against video conferencing. The test for determining the location of examinations is what is just and convenient for both parties based on circumstances of the case.
Sue Noorloos
Sue joined Legate and Associates in 2011 after working in a general litigation practice. Sue works closely with the firm’s accident benefit department and her client’s rehabilitation teams to ensure that insurance benefits are provided when required and disputes are addressed promptly.
Sue has a love for music and is the choir director at Knox-St. Andrews Church. She is involved with Courthouse Rocks – a fundraiser for London Lawyers Feed the Hungry. She was the former secretary of the Middlesex Law Association. Her community volunteer activities have included performing/accompanying at community events, sitting on school council, coaching soccer, and judging moots at Western University and local high schools. She resides on a working farm and is involved with the local agricultural community. In addition to the practice of law, Sue is a “green thumb”, a sought after local performer and a busy Dance Mom.
Campbell v. Bruce (County), 2016 ONCA 371
The Court of Appeal upheld the trial decision of Justice M.A Garson. The County of Bruce (Bruce) as occupier, was liable for the Plaintiff’s injuries for failing to take reasonable care. No damages were dealt with at trial.
Cobb v. Long Estate, 2015 ONSC 6799
Released November 13, 2015 | Full Decision [CanLII] Note: not yet available on CanLII There are 3 good reasons to do careful mathematics before resolving a case, drafting an offer to settle or going to trial: deduction of collateral benefits; the statutory deductible for General and FLA damages; and the applicable pre-judgment interest rate. In Cobb, a $220,000 jury verdict, broken down below, was virtually …
Little v. Einarsen, 2015 BCSC 2127 (CanLII)
Released November 19, 2015 | Decision It was an unusual situation. Einarsen parked her vehicle on a slope and engaged the emergency brake. She entered the pub. About ten minutes later, her unoccupied automobile rolled down the slope of the parking lot. The Plaintiff, Little, was struck from behind by the rolling car as he walked across the parking lot. The vehicle continued to roll …
Aquatech Logistics et al. v. Lombard Insurance et al., 2015 ONSC 5858 (CanLII)
Released September 23, 2015 | Full Decision Justice Dunphy ordered that three insurance companies had the duty to defend. The Application was brought by Aquatech and one of its insurers, Aviva (provider of the automobile policy), against two of Aquatech’s liability insurers: Lombard – provided a $3 million Comprehensive General Liability Policy; ACE INA – provided a $1 million Pollution Incident Liability Insurance The purpose …
Forestall v. Carrol, 2015 ONSC 5883 (CanLII)
Released September 23, 2015 | Full Decision Rarely will leave to appeal be granted from the decision to dismiss a summary judgment motion. Normally, the moving party lives to fight the issue on the merits another day. This was the rare case. The issue was discrete but central in the proceedings. It would speed the resolution of a long standing case. In 2005, a collision …
