Ian Mutter

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to attend a live virtual psychiatric assessment with Dr. D. Berbrayer.

The plaintiff had refused, arguing the defendants had previously opted for a paper review and that no new evidence warranted a further assessment.

The court granted the motion, finding that the necessity criterion was met due to a recently filed expert report by the plaintiff, and that trial fairness dictated both parties have an equal opportunity to present evidence.

The court also found no prejudice to the plaintiff and that granting the request would not delay the trial.

Costs were awarded to the successful defendants.

The defendant insurer brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action against it.

The plaintiff, who was involved in a fatal collision with a pedestrian, sued his insurer for the alleged negligence of an unidentified driver.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to plead that the unidentified driver caused or contributed to his damages, having expressly pleaded that his losses were caused entirely by the pedestrian and the city.

The court dismissed the action against the insurer, as it was plain and obvious the claim could not succeed without pleading causation.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend her statement of claim to add a janitorial company as a defendant in a slip and fall action, after the presumptive two-year limitation period had expired.

The proposed defendant opposed the motion, arguing the plaintiff failed to take reasonable steps to investigate the claim within the limitation period.

The court found the plaintiff provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, as her paralegal believed in-house staff handled internal spills.

The court granted leave to add the defendant, noting the limitation defence could be pleaded and determined at trial or summary judgment.