Appeals from the Orders of Tzimas J., and Mccarthy J., Ordering that liability waivers offended s. 7(1) and 9(3) of the Consumer Protection Act.

The Divisional Court provides guidance on the interpretation of s. 61 of the SABS.

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.

Court strikes Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim alleging bad faith and punitive damages by her insurer in the administration of her statutory accident benefits. The License Appeal Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction at first instance.

Following a jury Trial in which the Plaintiff recovered $68,250 in damages, Justice Salmers ruled on the quantum of costs and disbursements to be paid by the Defendant.  Specifically, the Court commented on whether the Plaintiffs’ disbursement in purchasing adverse costs insurance ought to be payable by the Defendant.

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.