Alden M. Dychtenberg

The defendant Aviva General Insurance Company brought a motion seeking to amend its Statement of Defence and compel the plaintiffs, Johanna Van Dijk-Alac and John Alac, to attend various defence medical examinations.

The plaintiffs claimed psychiatric, neuropsychological, and physical injuries from a motor vehicle accident, and Mr. Alac claimed for lost guidance, care, and companionship.

The court granted Aviva leave to amend its Statement of Defence.

It ordered Ms. Van Dijk-Alac to attend psychiatric and neuropsychological examinations, and Mr. Alac to be available to the psychiatrist for collateral information, but denied Aviva the discretion to unilaterally change experts or pre-determine the number of examination sessions.

The court also denied Aviva's request to be relieved of its obligation to serve expert reports prior to the pre-trial.

The defendants moved for a stay of the plaintiffs' action until the plaintiff, Tan Duc Ngo, completed a neuropsychological assessment.

This assessment had been previously attempted but terminated due to the plaintiff's health issues, leading to a prior motion before Di Luca J. to compel re-attendance, which was denied without prejudice to renew if new evidence of improved health emerged.

The current motion for a stay was dismissed by Edwards J., who found it an attempt to circumvent Di Luca J.'s order without presenting the required new evidence.

However, the court, acting as case management judge, ordered the plaintiff's counsel to obtain a medical report addressing the plaintiff's current ability to undergo the assessment and to testify at trial, and to explain any discrepancies.

Costs were to be resolved by the parties or through written submissions.

The plaintiff, Edward Sobie, as executor of Stanley Sobie's estate, brought a motion for a status hearing, a timetable, and an extension of time to set the action down for trial, and to reconstitute the action.

The defendants opposed and brought cross-motions to dismiss the action for delay, failure to properly constitute the action, and failure to obtain an order to continue.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the significant delay and did not establish that the defendants would suffer no non-compensable prejudice.

The court also found that the action was not properly constituted from its inception and that the plaintiff failed to obtain an order to continue after the property's transfer.

Consequently, the plaintiff's action was dismissed with costs.

In a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff moved for an order compelling the defendant to provide detailed particulars of surveillance conducted on the plaintiff.

The defendant agreed to disclose limited information but refused to provide full particulars where it did not intend to rely on the surveillance at trial.

The court held that the disclosure obligations under the Rules of Civil Procedure and the discovery process require full disclosure of surveillance particulars even if the defendant does not intend to use the evidence at trial.

Such disclosure assists parties in evaluating the strength of their cases and encourages settlement by preventing tactical surprise.

The motion was granted and the defendant was ordered to provide the requested surveillance particulars.