3 total
Court uses case conference powers to summarily resolve procedural disputes and prevent tactical motions.
At a case conference, the court addressed ongoing procedural delays and tactical gamesmanship between the parties.
The defendants sought to bring a contempt motion for the plaintiffs' failure to comply with an order to answer undertakings, while the plaintiffs sought a cross-motion for security for costs.
Relying on the culture shift mandated by Hryniak and the powers under Rule 50.13, the court declined to schedule formal motions and instead made summary orders directing the plaintiffs to comply with the prior order, produce physical flooring samples in Toronto for inspection, and file corrected pleadings.
Court admitted unavailable plaintiffs' discovery transcripts but excluded an expert's non-compliant affidavit.
The Plaintiffs in a medical negligence action brought a motion seeking leave to admit an expert's affidavit and discovery transcripts of two family members (one deceased, one unwell) into evidence at trial.
The court dismissed the request to admit the expert's affidavit, finding it did not comply with Rule 53 requirements for expert reports and would unfairly deprive the defence of cross-examination.
However, the court granted leave to admit the discovery transcripts of the family members under Rule 31.11(6), subject to the Plaintiffs immediately quantifying their Family Law Act claims and providing the family doctor's notes for the relevant period to the defence, to ensure fairness given the inability of the family members to testify.
Dental discipline findings quashed due to committee's erroneous refusal to qualify the appellant's expert witness.
The appellant dentist appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct regarding his treatment of temporomandibular joint disorders.
He argued that a committee member's prior involvement with a Quality Assurance Committee created a reasonable apprehension of bias, and that the committee erred in refusing to qualify his proposed expert witness.
The Divisional Court dismissed the bias claim but found the committee erred in refusing to qualify the expert witness.
The findings of misconduct that depended on expert testimony were quashed, and the penalty and costs were set aside and remitted to a newly constituted panel.