Joseph Jr John Vettese

The moving party, a corporate defendant, brought a motion for a complex protective order before producing an affidavit of documents or reviewing its own relevant documents.

The plaintiff consented, but the self-represented co-defendant did not respond.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it premature and the proposed order over-broad.

The court noted that the moving party failed to identify specific harm associated with the disclosure of particular documents and relied on sweeping generalizations instead of the existing protections under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff brought a motion to bifurcate a motor vehicle accident trial, strike the jury notice, and bar a defence medical examination.

The defendant cross-moved to compel the medical examination.

The court granted leave under Rule 48.04 for both parties to bring their motions.

The court dismissed the motion to bifurcate, finding it lacked jurisdiction under Rule 6.1.01 because the defendant had withdrawn its consent.

The court ordered the plaintiff to attend the defence medical examination to ensure trial fairness.

The motion to strike the jury notice was dismissed based on the 'wait and see' approach, as it was premature to determine if the jury would be prejudiced by the plaintiff suing her deceased husband's estate or confused by the engineering evidence.

Despite the defendant's success on the motions, costs of $5,000 were awarded to the plaintiff because the motions were necessitated by the defendant's late withdrawal of consent to bifurcation.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of an adjudicator's decision from a case conference that denied a request for a combination hearing.

The Associate Chair dismissed the request, noting that under the amended Rule 18.1 of the Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, requests for reconsideration are only accepted for decisions that finally dispose of an appeal.

Because the proceeding was ongoing, the request was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a case conference order that mandated a four-day in-person hearing, limited each party to four witnesses, and set a surveillance disclosure date.

The applicant argued these orders violated natural justice and procedural fairness, citing cost concerns and the need to call additional expert witnesses.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no evidence that the hearing format was cost-prohibitive or that the witness limit denied procedural fairness.

The surveillance issue was moot as the respondent had no surveillance to disclose.

The Applicant, injured in a motor vehicle accident, sought statutory accident benefits from the Insurer.

The Insurer refused to pay certain benefits, leading to an arbitration application.

The Applicant brought a motion for the production of the Insurer's complete log notes from the date of loss to the date the Application for Arbitration was filed.

The Insurer claimed litigation privilege over notes created after the first Application for Mediation.

The Arbitrator found that the Insurer has an ongoing obligation to adjust the file, and ordered the production of the adjuster's file up to the date of the Application for Arbitration, limited to the specific issues in dispute, subject to the Insurer providing a list of documents over which it asserts privilege.

The insurer brought a motion to adjourn the arbitration hearing until the applicant attended insurer examinations by a physiatrist and a cardiologist.

The insurer sought these examinations to assess the applicant's entitlement to post-104 week income replacement benefits, particularly after learning the applicant suffered a heart attack.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding the request for a physiatric examination unreasonable as there is no presumptive right to an examination at the 104-week mark.

The request for a cardiological examination was also denied due to the insurer's delay in requesting it, creating a presumption that it was primarily for obtaining evidence for the hearing rather than adjusting the claim.

The prejudice to the applicant in adjourning the hearing outweighed the potential prejudice to the insurer.