In Gyorffy v. Drury, 2013 ONSC 1929 (CanLII), the majority of a Divisional Court panel held that on a “threshold motion” under the Insurance Act, the injured plaintiff can, himself or herself, provide the corroborative evidence required by s. 4.3(5) of Reg….
In Graat v. Adibfar, 2013 ONSC 3264 (CanLII), Justice David Brown fixed costs following the six-day trial of a medical malpractice action. The jury had dismissed the plaintiff’s claim and the defendant doctor sought costs of $74,732.59. The plaintiff suggested that…
I was happy to read the reasons of Justice Joseph W. Quinn in Panetta v. Retrocom et al., 2013 ONSC 2386 (CanLII) because, to my mind, they bring a great deal of clarity to what I find is an often-misunderstood topic:…
In a recent ruling, Mr. Justice Robert Smith was asked to order that three plaintiffs in a personal injury action be examined for discovery in the absence of each other. The case is Heasley v. Labelle, 2013 ONSC 2601 (CanLII). One…
In Boyce v. The Co-operators General Insurance Company, 2013 ONCA 298, the Court of Appeal has reversed the decision of Mr. Justice Michael Quigley, a ruling that I discussed in a comment last year. The Court of Appeal held that Justice Quigley had…
In Williston v. Hamilton (Police Service), 2013 ONCA 296, the Court of Appeal considered whether to make an “augmented award of costs” on the basis that the defendant, the City of Hamilton, had refused requests to engage in mediation pursuant to…
Georgian Downs Limited v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, 2013 ONSC 2110 (CanLII) is a recent decision on the subject of additional insureds, about which I have written in earlier posts. (See particularly here.) The decision of Justice Gregory…
In Portelance v. Williams, 2013 ONSC 1928 (CanLII), Justice Lynne Leitch dismissed a motion for leave to appeal a ruling of Justice Johanne Morissette, dealing with production of documents. Justice Morissette had ordered the defendant “to provide a summary of the…
Last Friday, the Court of Appeal ruled that the statutory conditions in a standard automobile policy do not apply to the uninsured automobile coverage that is mandated by s. 265 of the Insurance Act. In Bruinsma v. Cresswell, the plaintiff was…
Schmitz v Lombard In a recent decision, Mr. Justice Martin James of the Superior Court has ruled that the limitation period contained in s. 17 of the underinsured automobile endorsement, OPCF 44R “cannot operate as a limitation defence and that…