Bahram Dehghan

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel answers to questions refused at the defendant's examination for discovery, to compel production of documents, and for leave to amend the statement of claim in a motor vehicle accident action.

The court ordered the defendant to disclose particulars of surveillance evidence before the plaintiff's examination, produce a redacted accident benefits application, and re-attend discovery regarding his opiate use.

The court also granted the plaintiff leave to amend the statement of claim to include allegations of impaired driving, punitive damages, and breaches of statutory settlement duties.

The Landlord (1617887 Ontario Ltd.) brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a crossclaim by the Estate of Greg Campbell.

The crossclaim alleged the Landlord was liable for the plaintiff's injuries due to failing to ensure the tenant tavern (Jessie's Café Bar & Grill) had adequate insurance and for failing to manage/supervise the premises, after the plaintiff was struck by a vehicle driven by Greg Campbell following intoxication at the tavern.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding that the Landlord did not owe a duty of care to manage or supervise the tavern, nor to ensure the tavern had public liability insurance, as there was no proximity or causal connection.

The motion for summary judgment was allowed, and the crossclaim against the Landlord was dismissed.

The plaintiff's claim against the Landlord was also dismissed as they had agreed to release the Landlord.

The plaintiff's personal injury action was dismissed after she failed to comply with an order requiring her to appoint new counsel.

She brought a motion under Rule 37.14 to set aside the dismissal, claiming she never received the notices of motion or the orders sent by regular mail to her home address.

The court found her claim implausible, noting that six separate documents were mailed to her correct address and none were returned as undelivered.

The court concluded she did not fail to appear through accident, mistake, or insufficient notice, and dismissed the motion.

Following a successful motion compelling the plaintiff to attend a second defence psychiatric examination under the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Courts of Justice Act, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The moving parties sought partial indemnity costs exceeding $11,000, while the responding party proposed a substantially lower amount.

Applying the proportionality principle and the factors in Rule 57.01, the court held that the moving parties were entitled to costs but that the time claimed for preparation was excessive.

The court fixed costs in a reduced lump sum amount as fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

In a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident where liability was admitted, the defendants moved for an order compelling the plaintiff to attend a second defence psychiatric examination under s. 105 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 33 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff opposed the request, arguing the defendants had already conducted an examination years earlier.

The court applied the factors from Bonello v. Taylor and found that trial fairness warranted a further examination, particularly given that the original defence report would be more than five years old at trial, new expert reports had been served by the plaintiff, and evidence suggested the plaintiff’s psychological condition may have deteriorated.

The court concluded that a current psychiatric assessment was necessary to permit the defence to fairly respond to the plaintiff’s expert evidence and to assist the trier of fact.

The motion was granted and the plaintiff was ordered to attend the psychiatric examination.