Aryeh Samuel

This ruling addresses a defendant's motion for leave to call more than three expert witnesses at a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff opposed, alleging duplication and disadvantage between the defendant's proposed physiatrist and orthopaedic surgeon.

The court granted leave, finding that the proposed five experts, despite some similar observations in their reports, represented distinct specialties and provided unique perspectives necessary for a full adjudication of damages, particularly in a chronic pain case.

The court found no undue duplication or disadvantage to the plaintiff.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's motor vehicle accident claim, arguing the plaintiff was entirely at fault for failing to yield at an intersection where traffic lights were inoperative.

The court found a genuine issue for trial regarding whether the plaintiff stopped before entering the intersection, which required a credibility assessment.

The court declined to use its expanded fact-finding powers under Rule 20.04 due to evidentiary issues, including the parties' failure to cross-examine witnesses on contradictory evidence as required by the rule in Browne v. Dunn, and problems with the plaintiff's expert evidence.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The defendant, B’nai Brith Canada, brought a motion under s. 137.1(3) of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss a libel action initiated by the plaintiff, Alexander Dimitri Lascaris, as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP).

The plaintiff claimed damages for an article and tweet published by the defendant.

The court found that the defendant's expression related to a matter of public interest (the conflict in the Middle East and the BDS movement).

The burden then shifted to the plaintiff to demonstrate substantial merit, no valid defence, and that the harm outweighed the public interest in protecting the expression.

The court concluded that the plaintiff could not overcome the defence of fair comment, as it was arguable that a person could honestly believe the plaintiff's actions constituted support for terrorists, even if unreasonable.

Consequently, the defendant's motion was granted, and the plaintiff's action was dismissed.