J. Pedro is an Ontario lawyer with 3 court cases on record from 2014 to 2021.

What courts has J. Pedro appeared in?

J. Pedro has appeared in Superior Court of Justice.

How many cases has J. Pedro handled?

J. Pedro has 3 cases on record from 2014 to 2021.

What judges has J. Pedro appeared before?

J. Pedro has most frequently appeared before Justice B. G. MacDougall, Justice McGraw, Justice R. Frank.

J. Pedro | Lawyer

3 total

SINGH et al v. MANN et al, 2021 ONSC 8249

In a multi-party motor vehicle accident action, the plaintiffs and two of the defendants entered into a Pierringer agreement.

The non-settling defendants brought a motion to compel production of the agreement, redacted only as to quantum.

The settling parties argued that only the 'essential terms' needed to be disclosed and that the agreement itself was protected by settlement privilege.

The court granted the motion, finding that the non-settling defendants faced potential procedural prejudice and that the need to protect them outweighed the public interest in maintaining settlement privilege over the non-financial terms of the agreement.

SCJDec 15, 2021

Respondent Counsel

Edwards v. McCarthy , 20 21 ONSC 7999

The defendants sought costs following their successful motion to compel the plaintiff to attend orthopaedic and psychiatric assessments.

The plaintiff opposed the costs, arguing the defendants' counsel delayed serving motion materials.

The court found no reason to depart from the general rule that the successful party is entitled to costs, noting the plaintiff opposed any examination, even virtual ones.

The court fixed costs payable to the defendants at $7,000 on a partial indemnity scale.

SCJDec 3, 2021

Applicant Counsel

West et al. v. Goldie et al., 2014 ONSC 5872

In a catastrophic personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle collision involving a disabled municipal snowplow, the moving defendants sought leave under Rule 29.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to issue a third party claim against the truck manufacturer, alleging a latent manufacturing defect caused a loss of electrical power that disabled hazard lights prior to the collision.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that adding a product liability claim would significantly delay trial and cause severe financial prejudice due to ongoing care costs.

The court held that leave to issue a third party claim must be granted absent undue prejudice to the plaintiff and that delay alone does not suffice.

Considering the arguable manufacturing defect and the policy favouring resolution of all issues in one proceeding, the court found no undue prejudice.

Leave to issue the third party claim was granted despite the likely adjournment of trial.

Applicant Counsel