Douglas Wright

This mid-trial ruling addressed the defendants' intention to cross-examine the plaintiff and her property guardian on the total amount of an accident benefits settlement in a tort action.

The court denied permission to inquire about the total settlement amount, finding its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value, especially given the plaintiff's mild brain injury.

However, the court allowed cross-examination on specific components of the settlement (caregiver, attendant care, and housekeeping/home maintenance expenses) that were expressly pleaded and denied, deeming these relevant to the mitigation defence.

The ruling clarified that collateral benefits are deducted by the trial judge as a matter of law after the jury's verdict.

The defendant insurer brought a motion under Rule 31.03(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside the plaintiff’s notice of examination seeking to examine an employee from its accident benefits department as a discovery witness.

The defendant argued that, due to a firewall maintained between accident benefits and third‑party bodily injury claims, an adjuster from the bodily injury department should instead be examined.

The court held that an examining party has a prima facie right to choose which officer, director, or employee of a corporate party to examine, and that this choice should not lightly be interfered with.

Given the plaintiff’s express consent to the sharing of information between departments, the concerns underlying the firewall policy were addressed.

The motion to set aside the examination was dismissed.