James Douglas Armstrong

The plaintiff sought an order to exclude co-defendant police officers from each other's examinations for discovery and to prohibit communication between them until the conclusion of discoveries.

The plaintiff argued this was necessary due to a risk of tailored or parroted testimony, citing the officers' prior conduct in criminal proceedings where they admitted to obstruction of justice.

The defendants opposed, asserting their right to attend and arguing no sufficient risk of tailoring existed.

The court granted the exclusion order, finding a clear risk of tailored evidence given the officers' past dishonesty, and determined that the ends of justice required the exclusion to ensure fair examinations, despite the logistical challenges for common counsel.

The insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding that the insured's claim for income replacement benefits was not statute-barred, as the termination letter was not clear and unequivocal.

The insured cross-appealed the dismissal of her claim for post-104 week income replacement benefits, arguing the adjudicator failed to consider whether alternative employment was comparable in status and reward.

The Divisional Court dismissed both appeals, holding that the limitation issue was a question of mixed fact and law not subject to appeal, and that the post-104 test under the Schedule does not require alternative employment to be comparable in status and reward.

On the eve of a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident claim, the plaintiff brought a motion to exclude late-served video surveillance reports or, alternatively, for an adjournment.

The court found that the recent surveillance was not substantially different from previously disclosed surveillance and did not unfairly surprise the plaintiff.

The court dismissed the motion to exclude the evidence, granting the defendant leave to use the reports for substantive purposes subject to a mid-trial voir dire.

A short adjournment was granted to allow the plaintiff to review the new surveillance.

The appellant insurer appealed an interlocutory decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) which found that the respondent's application for Income Replacement Benefits was not barred by the two-year limitation period.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as premature, holding that appeals from administrative tribunals should generally be restricted to final decisions to avoid fragmentation and increased costs.

The insurer may raise the limitation period issue in an appeal of the final decision if unsuccessful on the merits.

The defendant in a motor vehicle accident claim brought a motion seeking production of the plaintiff's Children's Aid Society (CAS) records, arguing they were relevant to the plaintiff's claim for psychological injuries.

The court found that because the action had already been set down for trial, leave was required under Rule 48.04, which the defendant failed to justify as there was no substantial or unexpected change in circumstances.

Furthermore, the court held that the CAS file was not relevant under Rule 30.10, as it contained no psychological or medical records, and ordering its production would be a disproportionate invasion of privacy amounting to a fishing expedition.

The motion was dismissed.