Alon Rooz

The defendant brought a motion to recover costs thrown away after the plaintiffs refused to sign consent forms at a scheduled defence medical examination, resulting in the examination's cancellation.

The plaintiffs had not been provided the consent forms in advance and were unable to reach their counsel for advice at the time of the appointment.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs acted reasonably in refusing to sign unfamiliar documents in an adversarial context without the opportunity to consult their lawyer.

The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the motion.

The defendant moved to set aside an ex parte charging order obtained by his former legal counsel for unpaid fees.

The defendant argued the plaintiff failed to make full and frank disclosure and withdrew services, both of which the court rejected.

However, the court found the plaintiff commenced the proceeding before the mandatory 30-day waiting period under s. 2(1) of the Solicitors Act had expired, rendering it a technical nullity.

The charging order was set aside, but enforcement was suspended for 60 days to allow the plaintiff to regularize the proceeding.

The applicant sought a declaration that he had submitted to an examination under oath under s. 33(2) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule after attending the examiner's office and leaving after 30 minutes because the insurer's counsel was late due to a scheduling error.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant thwarted the process without a legal basis and that his counsel engaged in sharp practice by taking advantage of opposing counsel's mistake without fair warning.

The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to attend independent medical examinations (IMEs) without conditions and sought costs thrown away for a previously cancelled appointment.

The plaintiff requested to have a support person present and to audio record the examination, citing stress and allegations of bias against the examining doctor.

The court permitted the plaintiff to have a support person present as a passive observer due to her mental condition, but denied the request to audio record the examination, finding insufficient evidence of bias.

The court also declined to award costs thrown away, finding the defendant booked the appointment prematurely before terms were agreed upon, and held that the plaintiff was not required to sign consent forms for the IMEs.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a further and better affidavit of documents, arguing the defendant omitted documents and failed to sufficiently particularize surveillance reports in Schedule B. The plaintiff also sought to cross-examine the deponent.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence of omitted documents and concluding the defendant provided sufficient particulars of the surveillance reports to allow the plaintiff to challenge the privilege claim after discovery.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment after the insurer declared her automobile insurance policy void ab initio based on an alleged misrepresentation that no other licensed drivers lived in her household.

The insurer relied on s. 233 of the Insurance Act and asserted that the plaintiff’s former partner was living with her when the application was made.

The court found the insurer failed to meet its evidentiary burden to establish a knowing misrepresentation and had not put its best foot forward on the motion.

The defendant’s evidence was largely indirect, hearsay, or overstated, while the plaintiff’s evidence was unchallenged.

Summary judgment was granted declaring the policy valid and requiring the insurer to honour its obligations.

The plaintiff brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking payment of two treatment plans under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff argued the insurer failed to provide adequate medical and other reasons for denial under s. 38(8) of the Schedule, thereby entitling him to payment.

The insurer maintained that it consistently provided reasons for denials, including that the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guidelines and that the insured failed to attend insurer examinations and provide requested medical documentation.

The court held that the evidence demonstrated ongoing communication and compliance by the insurer with statutory notice requirements.

Because the claims were intertwined with numerous other treatment plans and factual issues, partial summary judgment would not fairly resolve the dispute and a trial was required.

The insurer brought motions to set aside a noting in default and a default judgment in two actions brought by insured plaintiffs concerning obligations under a hold harmless agreement relating to unpaid accident benefit treatment accounts.

The insurer also sought summary judgment dismissing the actions, while the plaintiffs brought cross-motions for summary judgment.

The court held that the insurer had no plausible excuse for failing to deliver timely defences despite repeated warnings that strict compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure would be required.

Although the insurer may have had an arguable defence and brought its motion promptly, the prejudice to the elderly plaintiffs and the integrity of the administration of justice weighed against granting relief.

All motions were dismissed and the default judgment remained in force.