Jerry O’Brien

The defendants brought a motion to bifurcate the issues of liability and damages, and to compel the plaintiff to attend independent medical assessments by a neurologist and a psychiatrist.

The plaintiff opposed bifurcation and the psychiatric assessment, but agreed to a neurological and psychological assessment.

The court dismissed the motion for bifurcation, finding no persuasive evidence that it was in the interest of justice and noting it would likely increase costs and delay.

The court also declined to order a psychiatric assessment, finding that a psychological assessment was more appropriate given the plaintiff's treatment history and to avoid needless delay and expense.

The defendants brought a motion to bifurcate the issues of liability and damages, and to compel the plaintiff to attend a psychiatric assessment.

The court dismissed the request for bifurcation, finding no clear advantage or cost savings, as causation touched equally on liability and damages.

The court also declined to order a psychiatric assessment, noting the plaintiff had only seen a psychologist and her psychiatric condition was not in issue.

A psychological assessment was deemed appropriate instead, and the trial was adjourned.

The appellants sued a police detective and others for misfeasance in public office, relying in their statement of claim on testimony the detective gave at a coroner's inquest.

The motions judge struck the paragraphs referencing the inquest testimony under Rule 25.11, finding the testimony protected by s. 42(1) of the Coroners Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the striking of paragraphs that explicitly relied on the testimony to establish civil liability, but allowed the appeal regarding one paragraph that did not expressly refer to the testimony, finding it was not a 'clearest case' for striking at the pleadings stage.