Almeda Walbridge

The defendants brought a preliminary motion to strike affidavits filed by the plaintiffs in support of a larger "Refusals motion." The court granted the defendants' motion, striking the affidavits of Chris Pierre and Phyllis Bergmans, and specific portions of James Wallbridge's affidavit.

The court reserved on the issue of costs until after the Refusals motion had been heard and decided.

The Plaintiffs brought a motion for directions seeking to dismiss a summary judgment motion brought by six individual insurance adjusters, arguing that the issues of personal liability should be determined at trial due to complexity and potential for inconsistent findings.

The adjusters sought to dismiss claims against them entirely, arguing no genuine issue for trial regarding their independent personal liability.

The court, applying the principles from Hyrniak, determined that the summary judgment motion was an appropriate and proportionate method to address the adjusters' personal liability, finding the issues severable and not risking duplicative or inconsistent findings.

The Plaintiffs' motion for directions was dismissed, and the adjusters' summary judgment motion was ordered to proceed.

The Moving Defendants sought an order requiring the Plaintiff to attend a second psychiatric assessment with Dr. William Gnam, pursuant to Rule 33 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and section 105 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Plaintiff opposed this, arguing it was an abuse of process as Economical had already obtained a psychiatric assessment from Dr. Veluri.

Alternatively, the Plaintiff requested that if a second assessment was granted, it should be conducted by Dr. Veluri.

The court found that while a second assessment was warranted for trial fairness, the Plaintiff had provided valid reasons to require the assessment to be conducted by Dr. Veluri, who had previously assessed the Plaintiff for Economical.

The court ordered the Plaintiff to attend a second psychiatric assessment with Dr. Ramamohan Veluri.