Eman Khoshbin

At a case management conference, the plaintiff sought an extension of time to serve expert reports because a pediatric neurologist required an MRI to finalize her opinion, and the MRI was delayed until December 2019.

The court granted the request and amended the timetable for the service of expert reports, setting new deadlines for the plaintiff's and defendants' reports.

The clients brought a motion opposing the confirmation of an assessment officer's report regarding legal fees.

They alleged numerous errors, including procedural unfairness, misapprehension of facts, and application of wrong legal principles, arguing that no fees should be awarded.

The solicitors argued for deference to the assessment officer's findings, including credibility.

The court dismissed the clients' motion, finding no basis to set aside the assessment officer's decision, which had reduced the solicitors' fees from an initial amount to a confirmed sum plus costs.

The court confirmed the assessment officer's report and awarded the solicitors additional costs.

The defendants in a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident brought a motion for a further defence medical examination by a psychiatrist.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing the defendants had already received numerous psychological reports and a further examination would delay the trial.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff's recent treatment at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) and a new diagnosis of major depressive disorder constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court ordered the plaintiff to attend the psychiatric assessment, noting there was little prospect the trial would be called before the assessment could be completed.

The defendants, former lawyers of the plaintiff, brought a motion for leave to amend their statement of defence in a negligence action.

The plaintiff was seriously injured in a 2000 motor vehicle accident, and her tort claim was dismissed in 2009 due to a missed limitation period.

She then sued her former lawyers for negligence.

The defendants sought to add allegations regarding the standard of care at the time the tort claim was issued (2002) and a limitation defence against the plaintiff's current negligence claim.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing abuse of process, res judicata, collateral attack, and non-compensable prejudice due to the potential loss of a claim against her current lawyers.

The court granted leave for all proposed amendments, finding them legally tenable and that the plaintiff had not demonstrated non-compensable prejudice.

The court also clarified that leave to bring the motion under Rule 48.04 was not required as the defendants had not set the action down for trial.

This motion addressed refusals arising from examinations for discovery in a personal injury action.

The plaintiff was involved in two motor vehicle accidents, and the defendants sought disclosure on several matters, including a novel issue regarding Costs Liability Insurance.

The court directed the plaintiff to provide information concerning a prior assault incident and, crucially, to disclose the existence of any adverse costs indemnity or insurance coverage, deeming it relevant under Rule 30.02(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure for the resolution of personal injury disputes.

The defendants brought a motion seeking further discovery, production of documents, and an adjournment of the trial, citing a substantial change in the plaintiff's family circumstances impacting future care costs.

The court granted leave for the motion and ordered the plaintiff to attend a further examination for discovery, limited to three hours and focused on specific questions regarding his wife.

However, the requests for a further affidavit of documents and an adjournment of the trial were dismissed.

Costs were reserved to the trial judge.