Eric B. Heath

At a case conference for a personal injury action arising from a 2013 motor vehicle accident, the court addressed the plaintiff's failure to serve an expert report on the statutory threshold issue.

The court ordered the plaintiff to serve the report by May 31, 2022, rather than waiting until the 2023 trial date.

The court also granted the defendant leave to bring a motion to dismiss the co-plaintiff's claim for failing to appoint new counsel or file a notice to act in person under Rule 15.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's motor vehicle accident claim.

The collision occurred when the plaintiff attempted an improper left turn from a through lane, striking the defendant's vehicle which was proceeding lawfully in the designated left-turn lane.

Applying the enhanced fact-finding powers under Rule 20.04, the court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding that the defendant could not have reasonably avoided the collision.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed.

The applicant rental car company sought the return of a vehicle that had been fraudulently rented, crashed, and towed to the respondent repair shop.

The respondent claimed a lien under the Repair and Storage Liens Act for repairs and storage, or alternatively, compensation for unjust enrichment.

The court found no valid lien against the applicant but applied the doctrine of unjust enrichment, ordering the applicant to pay approximately half the repair costs and 60 days of storage fees to recover the vehicle.

No costs were awarded due to both parties' deficient business practices.

The defendants brought a motion for an order compelling the plaintiff to attend an in-person vocational assessment with a non-health practitioner and to provide raw test data from previous neuropsychological assessments to the defence expert.

The plaintiff opposed the motion.

The court held that it has inherent jurisdiction to order an examination by a non-health practitioner to ensure trial fairness, and that the raw test data was relevant and necessary for the defence expert to prepare his report.

The motion was granted.