Gordon Good

The plaintiffs sought leave under s. 12 of the Evidence Act to call four additional expert witnesses (three occupational therapists and one life care planner) in a personal injury action, beyond the three medical experts and one accountant already intended.

The defendants opposed, arguing duplication and unnecessary expense.

The court granted leave for two of the four additional experts: Ms. Schmidt (occupational therapist) and Mr. Smit (life care planner), but limited Mr. Smit's evidence to costs.

The court denied leave for Mr. Campbell and Mr. Tyrer, finding their evidence duplicative as both were occupational therapists and vocational assessors co-authoring reports on employability.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to produce a surveillance video, a list of unproduced accident benefits documents, and Dr. Deathe's assessment report.

The court dismissed the request for a list of accident benefits documents, finding no evidentiary basis to conclude further documents existed beyond what was already disclosed.

However, the court ordered the production of the surveillance video and Dr. Deathe's report (if it exists), deeming both relevant to the plaintiff's tort claim, despite the plaintiff's arguments regarding their limited scope or non-existence.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking leave to amend the statement of claim to add a declaration that she was a victim of crime under the Victims’ Bill of Rights, 1995 and to obtain substantial indemnity costs against the defendant who had pleaded guilty to dangerous driving.

The motion also sought summary judgment declaring the plaintiff a victim of crime and fixing costs payable by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund.

The court held that the proposed amendment constituted a new cause of action advanced 13 years after the accident and after the limitation period had expired, creating presumed non‑compensable prejudice to the defendant.

The court further found the evidentiary record insufficient to justify enhanced costs under the Victims’ Bill of Rights and inadequate to support the requested cost award.

The motion was therefore dismissed.

Following a civil jury trial arising from a motor vehicle accident where liability was admitted, the plaintiffs recovered modest damages far below the amounts claimed.

The plaintiffs sought over $422,000 in partial indemnity costs while the defendants argued the claim was disproportionate and relied on prior settlement offers.

The court analyzed proportionality, conduct of the litigation, trial duration, settlement efforts, and Rule 57.01 cost factors.

Although the defendants’ offers did not strictly comply with Rule 49.10, they were considered relevant under Rule 49.13.

Balancing the disproportionate costs sought, litigation conduct, settlement history, and the plaintiffs’ financial circumstances, the court declined to award costs to either side.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to comply with undertakings and refusals arising from an examination for discovery in a motor vehicle accident action.

The requests included production of treatment records, social assistance files, a pain diary, a supplementary affidavit of documents, and Facebook materials.

The court held that the plaintiff could not be compelled to obtain clinical records where the provider refused release pending payment, and that social assistance files were not relevant to the issues in dispute.

The court also found the plaintiff’s pain diary was protected by litigation privilege and that the defendants failed to establish relevance for additional Facebook production.

Although the court confirmed the plaintiff’s obligation to provide a supplementary affidavit of documents under Rule 30.07, the motion as framed was dismissed.

Following a civil jury trial for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident, the defendants brought a motion for a ruling that the plaintiffs' claims did not meet the statutory threshold under the Insurance Act.

The jury had awarded modest damages, implicitly rejecting much of the plaintiffs' evidence on causation and credibility.

However, the trial judge conducted an independent assessment and found the principal plaintiff to be credible.

The court concluded that the plaintiff suffered from chronic low back pain caused by the accident, which constituted a permanent serious impairment of an important physical function.

The defendants' motion was dismissed, and the court ruled that the plaintiffs met the statutory threshold.