Dr. Hamilton

The plaintiffs moved to strike the jury in a motor vehicle collision trial, alleging a breach of the rule in Browne v. Dunn by the defence.

The defence cross-examined the plaintiffs' medical experts on an alleged inconsistent symptom (fluid leaking from the ear) reported by the plaintiff to the Mayo Clinic, without having put this specific inconsistency to the plaintiff during his cross-examination.

The court found a serious breach of the Browne v. Dunn rule, which impaired trial fairness and the jury's ability to assess credibility.

The court determined that neither a correcting instruction nor recalling the plaintiff would remedy the damage, and therefore granted the motion to strike the jury.

The accused, charged with second-degree murder in the death of his common-law partner, applied to vacate his pre-trial detention order.

The victim had a history of severe injuries and reported prior domestic abuse by the accused, who had been diagnosed with schizophrenia.

The court found the proposed release plan inadequate to address the secondary ground of protecting the public, noting the lack of a detailed treatment plan for the accused's mental illness.

The court also found detention necessary under the tertiary ground to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice, given the strong Crown case, the gravity of the offence, and the vulnerability of the victim.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiff sought damages for injuries sustained in an unprovoked assault at a banquet facility.

Three defendants were noted in default.

Following an assessment of damages hearing, the court awarded the plaintiff $125,000 for pain and suffering, $25,000 for future treatment, $2,296.87 for an OHIP subrogated claim, and $50,000 for loss of competitive advantage, totaling $202,296.87.

The court also awarded costs of $67,390.82 against the defaulting defendants.

The applicant sought post-104 income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming a complete inability to work due to physical and psychological injuries.

The insurer denied the benefits and presented surveillance and social media evidence showing the applicant actively operating a holistic business, working as a life coach, and giving motivational speeches.

The arbitrator found the applicant lacked credibility and preferred the evidence of the insurer's neuropsychologist over the applicant's experts, who were unaware of her business activities.

The application for income replacement benefits, a special award, and interest was dismissed, with expenses awarded to the insurer.

The plaintiffs' medical negligence action against the defendant physician settled for $400,000 in damages prior to trial, and the parties settled liability on the morning of the trial.

The parties could not agree on costs.

The plaintiffs sought over $264,000 in costs and disbursements, arguing the defendant unreasonably delayed settlement.

The court rejected the argument for elevated costs to sanction the defendant, noting the case involved competing expert opinions.

Applying the principle of proportionality, the court reduced the plaintiffs' claimed fees and significantly reduced an expert witness's disbursement, fixing total costs at $125,000 for fees and $45,000 for disbursements.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for general damages, a catastrophic impairment designation, and income replacement benefits arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The court granted summary judgment dismissing the claims for general damages and catastrophic impairment, finding no evidence to support the bad faith claim and no expert evidence establishing that the plaintiff met the statutory definition of catastrophic impairment.

However, the court dismissed the motion regarding income replacement benefits, finding that conflicting medical evidence about whether the plaintiff's seizure disorder and cognitive decline were caused by the accident or a pre-existing condition created a genuine issue requiring a trial.