Mahsa Dabirian

The plaintiff sought damages for injuries sustained in a car accident.

While the defendant admitted fault for the accident, the trial proceeded on the issue of damages, including non-pecuniary loss, loss of income, and future care costs.

The court found the plaintiff's testimony regarding her symptoms and limitations to be not credible, noting inconsistencies and a willingness to exaggerate or understate symptoms based on her immediate goals.

Consequently, the expert opinions largely based on the plaintiff's self-reports were given little weight.

The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that her alleged injuries were caused or aggravated by the accident or that she met the statutory threshold for permanent serious impairment under the Insurance Act.

The action was dismissed.

The plaintiffs in two medical negligence actions appealed a decision dismissing their motions to compel production of documents and answers to discovery questions related to hospital quality of care reviews.

The Associate Justice had found the information irrelevant and protected by common law quality assurance privilege.

On appeal, the court found the documents and questions to be relevant but upheld the Associate Justice's conclusion that a common law evidentiary privilege (Wigmore test) applied to the quality assurance communications, and that the Quality of Care Information Protection Act, 2016 (QCIPA) did not abrogate this common law privilege.

The appeals were dismissed.

The plaintiffs in two medical negligence actions brought refusals motions seeking production of information and documents from hospital case reviews and morbidity and mortality rounds.

The defendants argued the information was irrelevant and protected by common law quality assurance privilege.

The court dismissed the motions, finding the information irrelevant as it involved hindsight and potential remedial measures.

Furthermore, the court held that the Quality of Care Information Protection Act, 2004 did not abrogate common law privilege, and the communications satisfied the Wigmore criteria for protection.