D. Gilbert is an Ontario lawyer with 3 court cases on record from 2012 to 2016.

What courts has D. Gilbert appeared in?

D. Gilbert has appeared in Superior Court of Justice.

How many cases has D. Gilbert handled?

D. Gilbert has 3 cases on record from 2012 to 2016.

What judges has D. Gilbert appeared before?

D. Gilbert has most frequently appeared before Justice Ronna Marie Brott, Justice Ronna M. Brott.

D. Gilbert | Lawyer

3 total

Reggie Babcock v. Angelo Destefano and Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, 2016 ONSC 155765

The defendant Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company brought a motion for orders requiring the plaintiff to undergo several independent medical examinations.

The plaintiff opposed the motion on the basis that the action had already been set down for trial and pre-trials had occurred.

The provided text is an incomplete draft endorsement detailing the procedural history of the action.

SCJAug 22, 2016

Respondent Counsel

Nadarajah v. City of Toronto, 2014 ONSC 4254

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend the statement of claim to add the estate of a deceased youth as a defendant, add the deceased rescuer through a litigation administrator as a plaintiff, increase damages, and have related actions tried together.

The court considered Rule 5.04(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the doctrine of special circumstances under the Trustee Act permitting addition of parties after expiry of the limitation period.

Applying authorities including Joseph v Paramount Canada’s Wonderland and Bikur Cholim Jewish Volunteer Services v Penna Estate, the court found special circumstances and no non‑compensable prejudice to the proposed defendant estate.

The court also found the presumption of prejudice rebutted given the existence of related proceedings and prior involvement of the estate in litigation arising from the same incident.

Leave to amend the claim and add the parties was granted and the related actions were ordered to be tried together.

SCJJul 15, 2014

Applicant Counsel

Aherne et al. v. Chang et al., 2012 ONSC 2689

The moving defendants sought to transfer two related medical negligence actions from Toronto to London, Hamilton, or Milton under Rule 13.1.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The claims arose from alleged latex exposure during medical treatment in London and Ancaster, and the defendants argued that the events and witnesses were primarily located outside Toronto.

Applying the holistic analysis of the enumerated factors under Rule 13.1.02(2), the court considered the location of events, convenience of parties and witnesses, court availability, litigation costs, and other relevant circumstances.

The court concluded that the moving parties failed to demonstrate that any proposed venue was significantly better than the plaintiff’s chosen venue.

The motion to transfer the actions was dismissed.

Respondent Counsel