Full Decision Background: The plaintiff, Ms. Sheikhbaghermohajer, was injured in a rear-end collision on October 6, 2014. At the conclusion of trial and accounting for the appropriate deductions and pre-judgment interest, the plaintiff was awarded a total of $469,774.85. The plaintiff sought her legal fees on a partial indemnity basis which was $401,560.23 plus HST. She sought her disbursements which were $139,334.26 plus HST. The …
Full Decision This Ottawa summary judgment decision again highlights that lack of expert evidence may be fatal to a medical malpractice case. Ms. Abdul-Hussein, the self-represented plaintiff in this matter, sued Dr. Werner Zabel, an ophthalmologist. Ms. Abdul-Hussein alleged he had performed a cataract surgery and laser capsulotomy negligently and failed to obtain her informed consent. She framed her claim as one of battery and …
Full Decision This case reinforces the stringent threshold for dismissing a claim via a summary judgment motion, emphasizing that the Court rigorously evaluates whether there is a genuine issue warranting a trial based on the strength of the evidence presented in the motion materials. Particularly in cases involving unidentified drivers, this decision highlights the critical role of medical evidence in successfully contesting a motion for …
Full Decision On November 21, 2023, the plaintiffs brought a motion for an order striking the statement of defence due to the defendant’s failure to serve a sworn and complete affidavit of documents and to attend examination for discovery. Alternatively, the plaintiffs sought an order compelling the delivery of the affidavit of documents and the defendant’s attendance for examination. The defendant brought a cross-motion for …
Huber v. Allstate (“Huber”) involved an accident benefits dispute before the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “LAT”) related to a motor vehicle collision, which occurred on November 6, 2019. The issues in dispute were: (a) whether the applicant suffered a “minor injury,” in accordance with section 3 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (the “SABS”); (b) whether the applicant was entitled to psychological services in the amount of $3,841.09; and (c) whether the applicant was entitled to psychological assessment in the amount of $2,486. Additionally, the applicant further sought interest and an award under section 10 of O. Reg 664 due to the insurer unreasonably withholding or delaying payment to the applicant.
Full Decision The Ontario Divisional Court reminds legal professionals of their professional obligations with respect to advocacy. The single most important task of the litigator is to marshal and present the facts by admissible evidence to prove their case. Lawyers must never knowingly misstate facts. A lawyer must not assert as true a fact that cannot reasonably be supported by the evidence admitted in the …
