David Scott Lee

The respondent brought a motion seeking a contempt declaration against the applicant for failing to comply with previous orders regarding property expenses, dismissal of the applicant's will challenge, and an order for the applicant to vacate the deceased's property and list it for sale.

The court found that contempt orders could not enforce fixed monetary obligations under Rule 60.11, thus declining the contempt finding for arrears.

It also declined to dismiss the applicant's will challenge, finding it unwarranted for financial non-compliance.

However, the court ordered the applicant to vacate the property due to his failure to pay carrying costs and directed that all outstanding arrears be deducted from his share of the estate residue.

The request to list the property for sale was dismissed.

This ruling addresses the admissibility of expert medical evidence from Dr. Harmeet Gill, an ophthalmologist, in a medical malpractice trial.

The plaintiffs sought to have Dr. Gill testify on the standard of care for ophthalmologists, diagnosis and treatment of orbital cellulitis, the general standard of care for physicians dealing with orbital cellulitis (including emergency room and infectious disease specialists), and causation.

The defendants objected to Dr. Gill testifying outside his specialization and on causation.

The court admitted Dr. Gill's evidence regarding the standard of care for ophthalmologists, general physician knowledge (e.g., sepsis identification), and multidisciplinary team communication and record-keeping, finding it relevant and necessary to the plaintiffs' theory of the case.

However, the court excluded Dr. Gill's opinions on causation, as he admitted lacking expertise on the ultimate outcome of septic patients.

The defendant in a motor vehicle accident action brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to produce the transcript of her examination for discovery from a separate action against her long-term disability insurer.

The plaintiff opposed, relying on the deemed undertaking rule.

The court granted the motion, finding that the transcript was relevant to the plaintiff's injuries and that the exception under Rule 30.1.01(6) applied, allowing the transcript to be used for the limited purpose of impeaching the plaintiff's testimony.