2 total
The court granted the defendants' threshold motion, finding the plaintiff's ongoing knee issues were caused by pre-existing arthritis rather than the motor vehicle accident.
The plaintiff sought damages for injuries from a motor vehicle accident.
Following a jury verdict that awarded modest general damages, the defendants brought a threshold motion seeking a declaration that the plaintiff's claim for non-pecuniary loss was barred under the Insurance Act.
The court considered the plaintiff's significant pre-existing arthritic condition and the medical evidence on causation.
The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish that the motor vehicle accident caused a permanent serious impairment meeting the statutory threshold, largely due to the pre-existing condition and the jury's modest award.
The defence motion was granted.
The court dismissed a motion to exclude a plaintiff's medical expert, ruling that a treating physician and a retained expert may both testify if their opinions offer distinct contributions.
The defendants brought a motion to exclude the plaintiff's second orthopedic expert, Dr. Daniel Ogilvie-Harris, arguing that his testimony duplicated that of the plaintiff's treating physician, Dr. Robert Luba, and citing prior judicial comments regarding Dr. Ogilvie-Harris's alleged bias.
The plaintiff sought to admit both experts, asserting distinct contributions and the need for a Rule 53 expert to challenge the defence's expert.
The court dismissed the defendants' motion, allowing both Dr. Luba to testify as a participant expert and Dr. Ogilvie-Harris as a Rule 53 expert.
The court found that Dr. Ogilvie-Harris's opinion offered significant differences, including addressing the Insurance Act threshold and challenging the defence expert, and ruled that allegations of bias should be addressed in a voir dire.
