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.
Case Summaries Category Archives
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.
Corbett v. Odorico, 2016 ONSC 2961
Superior Court Motion for costs of trial by successful plaintiff. The sought costs exceeded the award recovered at trial. The court decides that over-emphasis on proportionality may serve to under-compensate a litigant for costs legitimately incurred
Bishop-Gittens v. Lim, 2016 ONSC 2887
Superior Court Threshold Motion in which the plaintiff established that their impairments (including chronic pain disorder) constituted permanent serious impairment of important physical, mental or psychological function as a result of a motor vehicle collision
Brown v. Baum, 2016 ONCA 325
The Ontario Court of Appeal held that, in circumstances where the plaintiff’s doctor continued to treat the plaintiff and engage in good faith efforts to remediate damage, the plaintiff did not know that it was appropriate to start an action against the doctor until after the last surgery proved unsuccessful.
Lauesen v. Silverman, 2016 ONCA 327
The Ontario Court of Appeal held that a solicitor’s negligence claim based on improvident settlement in a personal injury action was not discoverable until new counsel advised the plaintiff of it after obtaining an expert medical-legal opinion.