3 total
Motion to compel answers to discovery refusals and production of financial documents granted.
The Regional Municipality of York brought a motion to compel the Claimants to answer questions refused and produce documents requested during an examination for discovery in an expropriation compensation proceeding.
The requested documents included corporate tax returns, financial statements, and occupancy records.
The Tribunal found the requested information relevant to the damages claims and ordered the Claimants to provide the answers and documentation, noting that confidentiality is not a proper basis to refuse production of relevant documents.
Tribunal orders production of financial records for non-arm's length mortgages in expropriation disturbance damages claim.
In an expropriation proceeding, the Claimant sought disturbance damages including $1,015,000 for additional mortgage interest costs allegedly caused by delay.
The Region brought a motion for production of financial statements, bank records, and corporate records from the Claimant and two third-party mortgagees, arguing the mortgages were non-arm's length transactions involving the Claimant's director.
The Tribunal allowed the motion in part, ordering production of the requested financial and corporate records, finding them relevant to proving whether funds were actually disbursed and necessary to avoid prejudice to the Region.
Summary judgment granted dismissing catastrophic impairment and bad faith claims, but denied for income replacement benefits.
The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for general damages, a catastrophic impairment designation, and income replacement benefits arising from a motor vehicle accident.
The court granted summary judgment dismissing the claims for general damages and catastrophic impairment, finding no evidence to support the bad faith claim and no expert evidence establishing that the plaintiff met the statutory definition of catastrophic impairment.
However, the court dismissed the motion regarding income replacement benefits, finding that conflicting medical evidence about whether the plaintiff's seizure disorder and cognitive decline were caused by the accident or a pre-existing condition created a genuine issue requiring a trial.
