D. Wilson

The defendants sought an adjournment of a five-day trial because one of the named defendants was scheduled to undergo spinal surgery.

The plaintiffs' counsel refused to consent to the adjournment, demanding medical records and authorizations to speak directly with the defendant's treating physicians.

The court granted the adjournment, finding the plaintiffs' counsel's demands inappropriate and contrary to the principles of professionalism, and ordered that the plaintiffs could not recover costs incurred after being notified of the adjournment request.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiff, who claims over $4 million in damages following a motor vehicle accident, to attend independent medical examinations by a psychiatrist, neurologist, physiatrist, and vocational evaluator.

The plaintiff opposed the assessments, arguing they were unnecessary and duplicative.

The court granted the motion, finding that given the complex medical issues, including alleged traumatic brain injury, chronic pain, and significant loss of income claims, trial fairness dictated that the defendants be permitted to have the plaintiff assessed by these specialists to respond to the plaintiff's expert evidence.

The court also admonished plaintiff's counsel for inappropriately attempting to impose conditions directly on the defendants' proposed assessors.

The applicant, a party under disability who suffered catastrophic injuries in a motor vehicle accident, sought court approval of a $900,000 settlement for statutory accident benefits.

The court approved the settlement quantum as reasonable and in the applicant's best interests.

However, the court declined to approve the proposed distribution, which included a structured settlement and payments to a former solicitor and a litigation loan company, citing a lack of updated medical evidence and concerns over the loan and former solicitor's actions.

The matter was referred to the Public Guardian and Trustee for a report and recommendations.

The defendants' counsel brought a motion to be removed from the record shortly before a scheduled wrongful dismissal trial.

The plaintiff opposed any adjournment of the trial date but did not oppose the removal of counsel.

The court granted the motion to remove counsel due to a breakdown in the relationship and lack of instructions following a corporate acquisition.

However, the court refused to adjourn the trial date, finding that the corporate defendant had ignored the approaching trial and that an adjournment would unfairly prejudice the plaintiff.

The plaintiff set the action down for trial and counsel attended trial scheduling court to fix a date.

The judge convened a case conference and determined that the action, commenced in 2014 regarding a construction dispute, was not ready for trial.

Interlocutory steps including undertakings, potential refusal motions, and expert reports were incomplete, and a companion action had sat dormant.

The judge struck the action from the trial list, directing counsel to return only when the matter is truly ready for trial.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the jury notice in a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident, citing trial delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The plaintiff also sought an Order to Continue following the death of one of the defendants.

The court granted the Order to Continue but dismissed the motion to strike the jury notice, finding that the delay was partially attributable to the parties and that the anticipated delay in Toronto was not sufficient to deprive the defendants of their substantive right to a jury trial.