Alysia M. Christiaen

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel representatives of the Yamaha defendants to re-attend examinations for discovery to answer questions regarding their investigation of a boating accident.

The defendants had refused the questions, asserting litigation and solicitor-client privilege.

The court found that the dominant purpose of the defendants' investigation was in anticipation of litigation, which was reasonably anticipated shortly after the accident.

The motion was dismissed, and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay costs of $7,500.

The defendants brought a motion to discontinue the plaintiff's action pursuant to Rules 23.01(1)(b) and 23.04(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The self-represented plaintiff agreed to the discontinuance, acknowledging that the case would be over.

The court granted the order on consent, noting the plaintiff's voluntary agreement and thanking counsel for their professionalism.

The appellant municipality appealed a trial judgment finding it liable under the Occupiers' Liability Act for catastrophic injuries sustained by the respondent at a municipal mountain bike park.

The respondent fell from a wooden obstacle and was rendered quadriplegic.

The trial judge found the municipality breached its duty of care by failing to post proper warning signs, negligently promoting the park, failing to monitor risks, and failing to provide an adequate progression of qualifiers.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's application of the duty of care, standard of care, causation, or assessment of contributory negligence.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for an order compelling the plaintiff to undergo an independent psychiatric examination.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing it was brought too late and would jeopardize the trial date.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the insurer had possessed the plaintiff's medical records for a considerable time and had already benefited from independent examinations in the accident benefits context.

The court concluded that ordering the examination so close to trial would prejudice the plaintiff and diminish the prospect of a meaningful pre-trial.