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
Surveillance Video Does Not Contravene PIPEDA
An Ontario Superior Court judge has rejected an argument, made by a plaintiff in a medical malpractice action, that surveillance video should not be received in evidence at trial because it contravened the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act…
Div. Ct. Takes Liberal Approach to Affidavits on Information and Belief
In Carevest Capital Inc. v. North Tech Electronics Ltd. et al., 2010 ONSC 1290 the Divisional Court allowed an appeal from a ruling by Mr. Justice Ted Matlow, in which he had refused to admit two affidavits on a motion…
Thorburn J. Discusses What’s Required for Court Approval of Settlements
In Rivera v. Leblond, Madam Justice Julie Ann Thorburn was asked to approve the settlement of the claim of a cyclist who had suffered a serious head injury when struck from behind by an automobile. In the course of her…
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,…
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 decisionĀ appears above), was a subrogated claim arising out of a fire at a Smiths Falls…
Investigator’s Contact with Plaintiff Fatally Taints Evidence
In Cowles v. Balac, released November 4, 2004, Justice MacFarland of the Ontario Court deals with a problem that we have encountered from time to time: an investigator making direct contact with a plaintiff who is represented by counsel. The…
