Joseph Dallal

The respondent, an employee of the National Bank of Canada, developed severe allergic symptoms in April 2010 that she suspected were caused by mould exposure at her workplace.

She ceased working in August 2011 and was not diagnosed with a specific condition until February 2013, when Dr. Patel diagnosed her with a genetic deficiency affecting toxin detoxification and attributed her symptoms to mycotoxin exposure from toxic mould.

The respondent commenced an action in July 2013.

The Bank moved for summary judgment arguing the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding the limitation period commenced in February 2013 when the respondent received Dr. Patel's diagnosis.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, finding no error in the motion judge's application of section 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff brought a motion to disqualify Benjamin Dillon and his firm from acting for the defendant TD Home & Auto Insurance Company ("TD Insurance") in a tort action.

The plaintiff had previously provided confidential information to TD Insurance during an accident benefits claim, where TD Insurance was in a fiduciary relationship with the plaintiff.

The court applied the principles of conflict of interest, particularly from *MacDonald Estate v. Martin*, *Dervisholli v. Cervenak*, and *Ascani v. Ascani*.

It was held that despite internal firewalls within the insurance company, the same lawyer being privy to confidential information from both the accident benefits and tort claims created a disqualifying conflict of interest.

The motion to disqualify counsel was granted.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order requiring the injured plaintiff to attend a further defence medical examination with an addiction psychiatrist in a motor vehicle personal injury action.

The motions judge had granted the defendant’s request for the additional examination on the basis that the plaintiff’s marijuana use and addiction issues were central to the litigation and that expert evidence from a specialist would assist the court.

On the leave motion, the court considered Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and whether a conflicting decision justified granting leave.

The court found that the broad discretionary approach taken by the motions judge conflicted with the narrower approach articulated in prior authority governing further defence medical examinations.

Leave to appeal to the Divisional Court was therefore granted.