A. Ismail

In a motor vehicle accident tort action, the defendants brought a motion to amend their statement of defence, remove the plaintiff's counsel from the record, compel the plaintiff to attend independent medical examinations (IMEs), and stop the plaintiff's counsel from communicating with the IME evaluators.

The court allowed the factual amendments to the statement of defence but struck proposed paragraphs alleging the plaintiff was using her legal training to exaggerate her claims, finding them scandalous.

The court refused to remove the plaintiff's counsel, noting his potential evidence as her former law professor was tangential.

Finally, the court ordered the plaintiff to attend the IMEs without conditions and directed her counsel to cease imposing terms on the defendants' medical experts.

The plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident and commenced two actions: a tort action against the other driver and a breach of contract action against her long-term disability insurer.

After both actions were set down for trial and subsequently struck from the trial list due to counsel's non-attendance, the plaintiff brought a motion to have the actions consolidated or heard together.

The court granted leave under Rule 48.04 to hear the motion, applying a flexible approach as no trial dates would be delayed.

The court ordered the actions to be tried together or consecutively, finding they shared common questions of fact regarding the plaintiff's injuries and that hearing them together would save costs and avoid multiplicity of proceedings.