Emily Casey

The defendant brought a motion seeking two orders: a defence medical examination with an orthopaedic surgeon and an in-home cost of care assessment with an occupational therapist.

The court dismissed the request for the orthopaedic examination, finding it would merely corroborate an existing physiatrist's report and was not necessary for trial fairness.

However, the court granted the request for the in-home cost of care assessment, noting significant changes in the plaintiff's condition and living circumstances since the last report, and that the assessment was necessary for the defendant to fairly meet the plaintiff's substantial future cost of care claim, particularly regarding psychological and psychiatric impacts not fully covered by previous physical assessments.

The deceased, a non-swimmer, drowned in Lake Simcoe while visiting the respondents' cottage.

The appellants brought an action in negligence and negligent misrepresentation, alleging the respondents failed to warn the deceased of the lake's dangers and falsely represented that the lake was safe and shallow.

The motion judge dismissed the action on summary judgment, finding no special relationship or duty of care.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, agreeing that the respondents did not control the lake, did not create a risky situation, and owed no duty to warn the deceased of obvious dangers removed from their property.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to waive the requirement for the plaintiff to submit to oral and medical discovery, citing severe psychological conditions including PTSD and depression following two motor vehicle accidents.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the plaintiff's treating psychiatrist indicated discovery would be psychologically detrimental and cause a temporary regression, there was no compelling medical evidence that it would cause permanent psychological damage.

The defendant's right to full discovery was upheld.

The plaintiff was injured during an altercation with another passenger on a TTC bus and subsequently required a leg amputation.

He sued the TTC and the bus driver for negligence, alleging they failed to provide a safe environment, intervene, or call for help promptly.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment.

Relying heavily on video surveillance from the bus, the court found no evidence that the driver or TTC breached their duty of care as common carriers.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action was dismissed.