Justin S. Linden

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion to examine a non-party treating physician.

The respondents raised a preliminary issue regarding whether the order was final or interlocutory.

The Court of Appeal held that because discoveries were not yet complete and the information might still be obtained from the parties, the order was interlocutory.

Consequently, the appeal was quashed for lack of jurisdiction, with leave granted to seek an appeal at the Divisional Court.

Following a jury trial arising from a pedestrian–motor vehicle collision and related assault, the plaintiff recovered modest damages totalling $3,720 plus prejudgment interest.

The court considered prejudgment interest under s. 128(3) of the Courts of Justice Act and awarded the amount claimed.

The primary issue concerned costs where the recovery fell within the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court.

Applying Rules 57.01 and 57.05 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court declined to deny costs entirely but held that the modest recovery and settlement offers justified a significantly reduced award.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded at a substantially lower level than claimed.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing her motion for summary judgment.

The plaintiff was injured in an altercation with another guest at a house party hosted by the moving party.

The motion judge found that whether the moving party's role engendered a duty of care under the principles of social host liability was a genuine issue for trial.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, agreeing that there was some evidence that could support a finding of responsibility and that the threshold test for leave to appeal was not met.

The appellant, a clinical psychologist, sought a declaration that her insurer had a duty to defend her against an action for negligence and defamation arising from a psychological report she prepared.

The insurer denied coverage based on a professional services exclusion in her Commercial General Liability policy.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, finding that the injuries alleged were due to the rendering of professional services and did not fall within the incidental medical malpractice exception.

The appeal was dismissed.