James Douglas Allingham

The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for inordinate and inexcusable delay, spanning 22 years.

The litigation arose from a business partnership dissolution and minority shareholder dispute from 1993, involving allegations of oppression, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraudulent manipulation of accounts.

The court applied the Langenecker v. Sauvé test under Rule 24.01, finding the delay inordinate and inexcusable, particularly due to the plaintiffs' failure to advance the case and the loss of their entire file, including critical financial documentation and the death of the primary plaintiff and key accountants.

The court concluded that a fair trial was no longer possible due to both presumed and actual prejudice to the defendants.

The plaintiffs' action was dismissed for delay.

The defendants in a personal injury action sought an order to compel the plaintiff to attend a defence medical examination.

The plaintiff agreed on the condition that the examination be audio recorded, citing systemic bias among defence medical examiners.

The motion judge and Divisional Court allowed the condition.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered the examination to proceed without conditions, holding that an order to record a defence medical requires a specific factual foundation of potential abuse or concern regarding the specific doctor, not merely allegations of general systemic bias.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for a future care cost analysis.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing it was not reasonably required and pertained to future needs.

The arbitrator found that the insurer failed to refer the disputed assessment to a Designated Assessment Centre (DAC) as required by the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

Consequently, the insurer was deemed to have accepted the assessment as reasonably required and was ordered to pay the cost of the report.