We’ve gotten a bit behind over the holiday season, but over the next few days, we’ll get caught up on some interesting new decisions that have been handed down this month. We’re also in the process of re-designing our Updates; more about that soon.To begin with though, the Court of Appeal today dismissed a defendant’s appeal from a finding by a trial judge, that the plaintiff had suffered a brain injury. In Brown v. Camionnage Intra-Quebec Inc., the defence argued that in concluding that the plaintiff did have a brain injury, the trial judge had accepted the evidence of one doctor in preference to that of most, if not all, of the other doctors who testified. The Court of Appeal noted that many of the other doctors had more relevant sub-specialities. But it ruled that the trial judge was entitled to decide how much weight to give to the medical evidence and that he had been within his discretion in deciding to accept the one opinion in preference to the many.
Similar Posts
Lawyer Swearing Affidavit Can’t Be “Informed” by “the File”
In Kailayapillai v. Azzam, Mr. Justice Theodore Matlow has addressed a very frequently recurring practice point: the proper form of lawyers’ affidavits on information and belief, where the source of the information is not another human being but rather, “the…
Rule 53.03 Doesn’t Apply to Expert Witnesses Not Retained for Purposes of the Litigation
Subrule 53.03(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that, “[a] party who intends to call an expert witness at trial shall, not less than 90 days before the commencement of the trial, serve on every other party to the…
U.S. Engineer’s Testimony in Ontario Trial Not “Practice of Professional Engineering” Under s. 12 of PEA
quattrocchi-v-chiquita An interesting issue arose last month at a trial in which our office was involved. The action, Quattrocchi v. Chiquita et al. (link to decision appears above), was a subrogated claim arising out of a fire at a Smiths Falls…
Privileged Engineer’s Report Producible in Subsequent Litigation
A recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court raises an issue that is of increasing concern to insurers: the loss of litigation privilege. In Podeszwa et al and D. Preete et al and the Corporation of the City of London,…
C.A. Dismisses Appeal in Tiger Mauling Case
The Court of Appeal has dismissed the defendant’s appeal in Cowles v. Balac, the case in which Justice Jean MacFarland of the Ontario Superior Court found The African Lion Safari & Game Farm Ltd. liable to a couple mauled by…
Dangerous Driving Conviction Precludes Driver from Contesting Liability in Civil Action
The decision of Mr. Justice David M. Brown in Caci v. MacArthur raises some interesting questions relating to apportionment of fault. It also applied to this MVA action a line of decisions in sexual abuse cases, where defendants had not been…
