3 total
Late request for further defence medical examination denied before trial.
The defendant brought a motion under s. 105(4) of the Courts of Justice Act seeking an order compelling the plaintiff to attend a further independent medical examination by a psychologist for a psycho‑vocational assessment shortly before trial.
The defendant argued the examination was necessary to respond to the plaintiff’s psychological expert report asserting that the plaintiff was totally disabled from employment following a motor vehicle accident.
The court held that the defendant had not demonstrated that the further examination was necessary to ensure a fair trial, noting the plaintiff had already undergone several defence examinations and that the defendant could obtain opinion evidence through a records review.
The court further found the motion was brought too late, only weeks before trial, and would likely prejudice the plaintiff by delaying the scheduled trial.
The motion was dismissed.
Court awards partial indemnity costs after unsuccessful summary judgment motion.
Costs were determined following the plaintiff’s unsuccessful motion for partial summary judgment in an insurance dispute.
The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the moving party acted unreasonably in bringing the motion under Rule 20.06(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The court rejected that argument, finding the motion was brought reasonably given the complexity and uniqueness of the issues.
Applying the ordinary rule that costs follow the event on a partial indemnity basis, the court awarded costs to the responding party while directing expert fees to follow the cause at trial.
Summary judgment for fidelity bond coverage denied due to complex factual issues requiring trial.
The plaintiff credit union, in liquidation, brought a motion for partial summary judgment against its insurer under a fidelity bond.
The claim arose from an internal fraud perpetrated by the credit union's general manager, who engaged in an off-book deposit scheme that disguised a significant capital shortfall.
The insurer denied coverage, arguing that the plaintiff failed to prove a direct loss caused by the dishonest acts and that the losses were indirect or consequential.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the complex forensic accounting evidence required viva voce testimony and cross-examination at trial to determine causation and quantify the covered loss.
