Alysia M. Christiaen

The defendants brought a motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to attend a second independent medical examination (IME) with a replacement expert.

The defendants' initial expert, Dr. Steven M. Dilkas, conducted an IME on June 26, 2024, but subsequently ceased communicating with the defendants and failed to deliver any report or draft report.

After numerous unsuccessful attempts to obtain the report from Dr. Dilkas between August 2024 and January 2025, the defendants retained a replacement expert, Dr. Richard Kaminker, and sought a second IME.

The plaintiff refused consent.

The court granted the motion, finding that the defendants had adduced sufficient evidence of Dr. Dilkas's non-responsiveness and that the request for a second IME was legitimate and necessary.

The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the defendants must first pursue a Rule 33.06 motion to compel Dr. Dilkas's report, finding such a requirement would be inefficient and contrary to principles of proportionality.

The court ordered the plaintiff to attend the second IME with Dr. Kaminker and directed the defendants to reimburse all incidental expenses.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel representatives of the Yamaha defendants to re-attend examinations for discovery to answer questions regarding their investigation of a boating accident.

The defendants had refused the questions, asserting litigation and solicitor-client privilege.

The court found that the dominant purpose of the defendants' investigation was in anticipation of litigation, which was reasonably anticipated shortly after the accident.

The motion was dismissed, and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay costs of $7,500.

The defendants brought a motion to discontinue the plaintiff's action pursuant to Rules 23.01(1)(b) and 23.04(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The self-represented plaintiff agreed to the discontinuance, acknowledging that the case would be over.

The court granted the order on consent, noting the plaintiff's voluntary agreement and thanking counsel for their professionalism.

The applicant witnessed the aftermath of a motor vehicle accident involving his family members and sought statutory accident benefits for psychological impairments two years later.

The insurer denied the claim on the basis that the applicant failed to notify it of his intention to apply within the prescribed seven-day period under section 32 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had sufficient knowledge and ability to apply earlier and failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay under section 34.

The Tribunal concluded that the prejudice to the insurer outweighed any hardship to the applicant, and therefore the applicant was statute-barred from proceeding with his claim.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for occupational therapy and physiotherapy treatment plans.

The respondent denied the claims on the basis that the treatments were not reasonable and necessary.

At the hearing, the respondent raised a preliminary issue to exclude the applicant's affidavit, which the adjudicator dismissed, allowing the affidavit into evidence.

On the substantive issues, the adjudicator found that the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery and was able to perform her pre-accident activities, including full-time employment, without the need for further treatment.

The adjudicator concluded that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, and dismissed the application.

The plaintiff in a medical malpractice action sought an extension of time for discoveries.

The defendant Dr. Tayfour cross-moved for dismissal for delay or a stay until costs were paid.

The court dismissed the defendant's motions, finding that the plaintiff's delays were not inordinate or inexcusable, and there was no substantial risk of an unfair trial.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, setting new timelines for discoveries and trial, and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff costs of the motion.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interlocutory order made at a Small Claims Court settlement conference in a medical negligence action.

The order required the applicant to produce expert reports and directed third-party hospitals and doctors to produce the applicant's medical records.

The Divisional Court held that the Small Claims Court judge had jurisdiction to order the production of expert reports under the Rules of the Small Claims Court.

However, the court concluded that the Small Claims Court lacks jurisdiction to order third-party production of documents.

The application was allowed in part, and the third-party production order was set aside.

The appellant municipality appealed a trial judgment finding it liable under the Occupiers' Liability Act for catastrophic injuries sustained by the respondent at a municipal mountain bike park.

The respondent fell from a wooden obstacle and was rendered quadriplegic.

The trial judge found the municipality breached its duty of care by failing to post proper warning signs, negligently promoting the park, failing to monitor risks, and failing to provide an adequate progression of qualifiers.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's application of the duty of care, standard of care, causation, or assessment of contributory negligence.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for an order compelling the plaintiff to undergo an independent psychiatric examination.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing it was brought too late and would jeopardize the trial date.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the insurer had possessed the plaintiff's medical records for a considerable time and had already benefited from independent examinations in the accident benefits context.

The court concluded that ordering the examination so close to trial would prejudice the plaintiff and diminish the prospect of a meaningful pre-trial.