Dr. Gupta

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's long-term disability claim, arguing the plaintiff was not totally disabled prior to his termination.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion for summary judgment.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that the conflicting medical evidence and questions regarding the plaintiff's credibility and the exact onset date of his disability created genuine issues requiring a trial.

The applicant brought a motion to change a 2011 consent order that provided for time-limited spousal support, arguing that her deteriorating physical and mental health constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court found that the applicant's severe health issues, including PTSD and schizoaffective disorder, prevented her from achieving self-sufficiency and were not contemplated at the time of the original order.

The court varied the order to extend spousal support for an additional 13 years at $2,100 per month, but dismissed the applicant's alternative claim to set aside the original agreement on grounds of unconscionability and duress.

The defendant dentist moved for summary judgment in a dental negligence claim without filing any expert evidence on the merits of his defence, relying on previous case law suggesting defendants need not do so.

Following the release of the Court of Appeal's decision in Sanzone v. Schecter, which clarified that moving defendants must put their best evidentiary foot forward under Rule 20.01(3), the court dismissed the summary judgment motion.

The court held that the defendant failed to discharge his evidentiary burden to prove there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The defendant moved for summary judgment on a dental negligence claim, arguing the plaintiff failed to provide a proper expert report, and sought to strike several paragraphs from the statement of claim.

The court found the plaintiff's expert affidavit deficient in form and raised concerns about the admissibility of underlying reports due to potential conflicts with the Regulated Health Professions Act.

The court deferred a final decision on the summary judgment motion, ordering further submissions on the admissibility of evidence.

However, the court granted the motion to strike numerous paragraphs from the statement of claim that were deemed irrelevant or inconsistent with the RHPA.