Christopher A. Obagi

The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiffs to produce unredacted copies of the plaintiff's hospital records relating to a recent psychotic episode.

The plaintiffs had redacted portions containing false, delusional allegations of criminal conduct against third parties.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the redacted information was irrelevant to the personal injury claim and its disclosure would cause significant harm to the plaintiff and innocent third parties.

The plaintiffs' cross-motion for a sealing order and anonymization was adjourned to allow compliance with the Practice Direction regarding notice to the media for discretionary publication bans, with an interim publication ban granted.

The plaintiffs commenced a tort action and an accident benefits action arising from a 2013 motor vehicle accident.

The actions were ordered to be tried together before a jury in April 2020, but the trial was suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Facing indefinite delays for civil jury trials, the plaintiffs moved to strike the jury notices.

The court granted leave to bring the motion and struck the jury notices, finding that the real and substantial prejudice caused by the delay outweighed the defendants' substantive right to a jury trial.

The court concluded that justice would be better served by proceeding to trial in a timely manner before a judge alone.

The plaintiff in a slip and fall action brought a motion to compel the attendance of a specific store manager for examination for discovery on behalf of the corporate defendants.

The defendants refused to produce the manager, providing medical evidence that she was suffering from terminal cancer and was medically unfit to attend.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants met the heavy onus required to excuse a selected corporate representative from discovery on medical grounds.

Costs were awarded to the defendants.

During the second week of a medical malpractice trial, the defendant physician sought leave to bring a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claim against him.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, finding that the defendant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay, the motion would unduly delay the ongoing trial, and there was insufficient evidence that a summary judgment motion would be a proportionate or cost-effective alternative to continuing the trial.

The plaintiff pedestrian sought leave to amend a statement of claim arising from a motor vehicle accident to add the defendant driver’s insurer as a defendant and to seek declaratory relief regarding insurance coverage.

The insurer denied coverage and argued that under s. 258(1) of the Insurance Act a plaintiff cannot sue an insurer until judgment is obtained against the insured.

The court held that while the statute prevents a direct claim for payment before judgment, it does not preclude a claim for declaratory relief regarding coverage between interested parties.

Given the broad jurisdiction to grant declarations and the goals of efficient and proportionate litigation, the proposed amendments were legally tenable and would allow earlier resolution of the coverage dispute.

Leave to amend was therefore granted with the exception of a paragraph seeking a declaration that the insurer was obligated to pay any judgment.