John B. Gorman

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking extensive documentary and oral discovery in a motor vehicle accident action and requesting that the defendants be prevented from bringing a summary judgment motion until discovery was completed.

The defendants argued that discovery should be deferred because they intended to move for summary judgment based on a limitations defence.

The court held that disclosure obligations under the Rules of Civil Procedure are not automatically suspended because a party intends to bring a summary judgment motion.

The court found that the requested disclosure was necessary for the plaintiffs to properly respond to any summary judgment motion and to prepare the case generally.

Most discovery relief was granted, including an order requiring a formal reply to a demand for particulars identifying the owner and lessor of the vehicle, but the request to prohibit the summary judgment motion was dismissed without prejudice.

The defendant insurer brought a motion seeking two defence medical examinations by an orthopedic specialist and an occupational therapist and production of the clinical notes and records underlying two expert reports recently served by the plaintiff.

The action arose from a 1994 motor vehicle accident and a dispute over termination of statutory accident benefits.

The court held that the defendant had previously obtained numerous medical assessments and had set the matter down for trial, indicating readiness to proceed on the existing evidence.

In the absence of evidence demonstrating a substantial and unexpected change in circumstances, the defendant failed to meet the threshold required to reopen interlocutory steps.

The request for production of underlying clinical notes and records was also rejected.