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 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.