Matthew Renwick

In a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident, the defendant moved to compel a proper affidavit of documents and further production from the plaintiff.

Applying the principle that relevance is determined by the pleadings, the court held that the requested medical, employment, tax, benefits, and property damage records were relevant to the pleaded physical and psychological damages and that the plaintiff had breached his production obligations through piecemeal and inadequate disclosure.

The court ordered the plaintiff to serve an affidavit of documents, including Schedule C, within 20 days, with modified wording limiting production to documents within the plaintiff’s possession, control, or power.

Partial indemnity costs of $4,607.69 were awarded to the defendant.

The plaintiff was injured in a motorcycle accident in South Carolina caused by an underinsured motorist.

The plaintiff settled his claim for $143,500, funded by TD Insurance, subject to a determination of liability between TD and Allstate Insurance.

TD brought a motion for summary judgment arguing Allstate was solely liable under its OPCF 44R Family Protection Coverage endorsement.

The court found the plaintiff met the definition of an 'insured person' under the Allstate corporate policy because he was an employee provided with a regular use vehicle, and the 44R endorsement provided differently than the OAP-1 exclusions.

Consequently, the plaintiff was excluded from coverage under the TD policy.

Allstate was ordered to reimburse TD for the settlement amount plus costs.

The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to attend a defence neuropsychological assessment and to extend the time for service of the resulting expert report.

The motion was brought after the deadline for serving expert reports under the agreed timetable and the Rules of Civil Procedure had passed.

Applying the amended Rule 53.08(1), the court found that the defendant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay in scheduling the examination.

The motion was dismissed, emphasizing the strict enforcement of expert report deadlines to prevent trial delays.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendants' jury notice in a motor vehicle collision action scheduled for trial in February 2022.

Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the Omicron variant, and the suspension of civil jury trials in London, the court found that waiting for a jury trial would cause unacceptable delay and prejudice.

Applying the principles from Louis v. Poitras, the court provisionally struck the jury notice and ordered the matter to proceed as a judge-alone trial.