Hassan A. Fancy

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 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.