Hassan A. Fancy

The plaintiffs brought a motion to adjourn the trial of a motor vehicle accident claim, alleging serious misconduct and fraud by the defendant's medical expert and defence counsel.

The plaintiffs sought time to investigate these claims and introduce prior tribunal and judicial findings against the expert.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidentiary basis for the allegations and noting that prior tribunal decisions and judicial comments on the expert's credibility are inadmissible in the civil trial.

The court held that an adjournment would cause undue delay and prejudice the administration of justice.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a Case Management Judge's interlocutory order refusing to recuse herself for alleged bias, as well as the order requiring them to pay $32,681.83 in costs on a full indemnity scale for the unsuccessful recusal motion.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions, no broad significance to the recusal issue, and no error in principle in the discretionary costs award.

The moving parties were ordered to pay $5,000 in costs for the leave motion.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal two orders: one dismissing their recusal motion against the Case Management Judge and awarding costs on a full indemnity scale, and another for costs of $32,681.83 for the unsuccessful recusal motion.

The court refused leave to appeal the recusal decision, noting no conflicting decisions and that the Court of Appeal had already confirmed the bias claim was unfounded.

The court also refused leave to appeal the costs order, finding no error in principle or that the award was plainly wrong, as the recusal motion was ill-conceived and unsubstantiated.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed in its entirety with costs of $5000.

The defendant bank brought a motion to remove the plaintiff's lawyer, arguing he would be a necessary witness at trial regarding his communications about an allegedly false incident report from a prior slip and fall action, and that he was in a conflict of interest.

The court applied the Mazinani factors and dismissed the motion, finding it was premature as discovery had not yet occurred and it was unclear if the lawyer's evidence would be significant.

The court also found no evidence to support the conflict of interest allegation.

The client appealed a motion judge's decision that set aside an Assessment Officer's certificate reducing his former law firm's fees.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and restored the Assessment Officer's certificate, ordering the law firm to refund $24,000.

The Court found the motion judge erred by hearing the appeal without the law firm having filed objections, by improperly admitting fresh evidence, and by substituting his own opinion for that of the Assessment Officer without finding a valid error in principle.

The appellants sought to certify a class action against the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation on behalf of problem gamblers who had signed self-exclusion forms but were subsequently permitted to enter gambling venues and suffered losses.

The action alleged breach of contract, negligence, and occupiers' liability.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower courts' decisions denying certification, finding that the claims required highly individualized inquiries into each class member's vulnerability, gambling history, and personal autonomy.

The court concluded that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure as the common issues would not significantly advance the litigation.

The infant plaintiff sued the defendant for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The defendant appealed an order striking out her third party claim against the infant plaintiff's mother.

The motion judge had struck the claim on the basis that the plaintiff's claim was limited to the defendant's proportionate degree of negligence.

The Court of Appeal amended the formal order on consent to explicitly state that the plaintiff's claim is limited to the damages apportioned to the defendant's relative degree of fault, and otherwise dismissed the appeal.

The defendant brought a motion under s. 105 of the Courts of Justice Act seeking an order requiring the minor plaintiff to attend a psychological assessment by a defence expert following a motor vehicle accident in which the plaintiff alleged traumatic brain injury and psychological impairments.

The plaintiffs argued the request amounted to an impermissible second defence medical examination and alleged concerns regarding the proposed expert’s impartiality.

The court held that further medical examinations may be ordered where necessary for trial fairness and where the proposed assessment involves different expertise from prior examinations.

Considering the plaintiff’s extensive expert evidence and the importance of expert testimony for a young child’s injuries, the court found the further assessment justified.

The court ordered the minor plaintiff to attend the psychological assessment and required the child’s mother to attend and participate in the interview.

The Appellant was successful in her appeal of an arbitration decision regarding catastrophic impairment.

She sought $64,003.46 in legal expenses for the appeal.

The Respondent argued the amount was excessive and disproportionate.

The Director's Delegate found the Appellant was entitled to her reasonable expenses, noting her complete success and the novel issues raised.

However, due to the lack of dockets and the excessive hours claimed compared to the Respondent, the Delegate reduced the fee claim to match the Respondent's estimated hours, awarding a total of $21,403.31 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The Appellant appealed an Arbitrator's decision finding she had not sustained a catastrophic impairment following a motor vehicle accident.

The Director's Delegate allowed the appeal, finding the Arbitrator erred in law by refusing to rate the Appellant's left upper extremity and right knee impairments because they had not stabilized, and by failing to properly address and rate her claimed sleep disorder and chronic pain.

The preliminary issue of catastrophic impairment was returned to arbitration for a new hearing.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits, claiming a catastrophic impairment.

An arbitrator found the appellant did not sustain a catastrophic impairment and directed the parties to request an expense hearing if they could not agree on legal expenses.

The appellant appealed the preliminary decision and sought a stay of the expense hearing.

The Director's Delegate accepted the appeal, finding it raised important and novel issues, including whether impairments should be rated before future surgery.

The Delegate also granted a stay of the expense hearing, concluding it would be more cost-effective and efficient to determine the appeal first, as the expense hearing would likely duplicate the appeal issues.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant relied on assessments indicating a 74% whole person impairment, while the insurer's assessors concluded she had a 31% combined impairment.

The arbitrator rejected the applicant's primary expert evidence, finding the assessor opined outside his expertise and acted as an advocate.

Preferring the insurer's experts and finding the applicant's evidence lacked credibility, the arbitrator concluded the applicant's combined physical and mental impairments resulted in a 28% whole person impairment.

The application for catastrophic impairment benefits was dismissed.