The courts will compel a plaintiff to attend a defence medical examination for a “matching” report where failure to do so would result in unfairness to the defendant.
Law Society of Ontario v. D’Alimonte, 2018 ONLSTH 86 (CanLII)
Advertising that is misleading or deceptive in nature will generally be met with a short suspension.
Raufi v. Jeyaratnarajah, 2018 ONSC 3524 (CanLII)
Justice Di Luca disallows “specious” disbursements.
S.H. and H.S. v. Northbridge Personal Insurance Corporation, 2018 ONSC 1801 (CanLII)
The Divisional Court provides guidance on the interpretation of s. 61 of the SABS.
Dunk v. Kremer, 2018 ONCA 274 (CanLII)
Where trial counsel employs inflammatory and inappropriate language in their closing, a clear and strong jury charge may obviate the need for a mistrial. Further, where a party fails to provide a Rule 53 report in adherence with the Rules, that expert’s evidence will be limited in scope.
Tan Duc Ngo v. Mario L. Neves, 2017 ONSC 6130 (CanLII)
Superior Court rules Plaintiff will not be compelled to attend neuropsychological assessment by defence as a result of the Plaintiff’s impairments and inability to complete the assessment.