Meghan Solveig Bridges

The plaintiffs brought a mid-trial motion to disqualify the defendants' proposed expert witness, Dr. Vernon Quinsey, arguing he lacked the requisite independence and objectivity.

Dr. Quinsey was previously employed as a staff psychologist and Director of Research at the very psychiatric facility whose programs were being challenged as unethical human experimentation.

The court found that Dr. Quinsey's integral role in evaluating the contentious programs during the relevant period created a serious doubt as to his objectivity.

The court concluded that the prejudicial effect of his evidence outweighed its probative value, and disqualified him from testifying as an expert, though permitting him to testify as a fact witness.

The defendants brought a mid-trial motion to admit three sur-reply expert reports.

The plaintiffs opposed, arguing the reports were unnecessary, prejudicial, and served late.

The court admitted two of the reports, finding them to be narrowly tailored responses to specific criticisms raised by the plaintiffs' experts.

However, the court excluded the third report, finding it to be an advocacy piece that improperly introduced new evidence and amounted to case-splitting.

The defendants brought a mid-trial motion to exclude the expert testimony of Professor Bernard Dickens, an ethicist, regarding the ethical standards of psychiatric care and research applicable in the 1960s and 1970s at the Oak Ridge Division of the Penetanguishine Mental Health Centre.

The defendants argued that Prof. Dickens, not being a physician, was unqualified to speak on psychiatric standards of care and that his reports primarily constituted legal analysis.

The court dismissed the motion, finding Prof. Dickens highly qualified as an expert in medical ethics, distinguishing ethical standards from medical standards of care and legal analysis.

The defendants brought a mid-trial motion to determine the admissibility of two reply expert reports (Prof. Shane O’Mara and Dr. Stephen Xenakis) served by the plaintiffs just before trial.

The defendants argued the reports were late and constituted impermissible case splitting.

The plaintiffs contended the lateness was due to unforeseen circumstances and that the evidence would assist the court.

The court found that the issues addressed by the reply reports were foreseeable and had already been covered by the plaintiffs' initial experts, thus constituting new evidence rather than proper reply.

The court dismissed the motion, ruling the reports inadmissible to avoid prejudice to the defendants and further trial delays, emphasizing the importance of adhering to trial schedules in a long-standing action.

The plaintiffs brought a mid-trial motion to amend their statement of claim to include reliance on section 16(1)(h.2) of the Limitations Act, 2002, and the common law doctrine of discoverability.

The claims arose from their treatment as involuntary patients at a mental health facility between 1966 and 1983, alleging assault through abusive experimentation and physical abuse.

The defendants opposed the amendment, arguing prejudice due to lack of particularity and insufficient discovery on discoverability.

The court granted the motion, finding no prejudice to the defendants as the allegations of assault and dependency were already pleaded, and the defendants had prior notice of the plaintiffs' intent to rely on section 16(1)(h.2) and had extensively explored issues related to discoverability (laches) during previous discovery examinations.

The defendants brought a mid-trial motion to exclude video footage of an interview between a deceased plaintiff and a documentary filmmaker.

The plaintiffs sought to introduce the unsworn footage to demonstrate the deceased plaintiff's sincerity and counter credibility attacks in the defendants' expert reports.

The court held that the video footage did not meet the criteria of necessity and reliability under the principled approach to hearsay, noting that the best available evidence was the deceased plaintiff's sworn examination for discovery transcript and affidavit.

The motion to exclude the evidence was granted.

The applicant, a dissident member of a not-for-profit corporation, sought access to the corporation's membership list, including electronic addresses, to requisition a meeting.

The corporation had withheld email addresses, citing privacy concerns.

The court found the corporation's refusal was intended to frustrate the dissident members and ordered the corporation to provide the electronic list, including email addresses.

The court also awarded $20,000 in costs to the applicant, noting that the corporation should not use its resources to place roadblocks in the way of corporate democracy.

The respondents appealed an order from the Superior Court of Justice directing a new trial on the basis that the jury's answers on causation were fatally flawed.

The moving parties brought a motion to quash the appeal, arguing that the order was interlocutory and therefore only appealable to the Divisional Court with leave.

The Court of Appeal held that an order directing a new trial is interlocutory in nature, as it does not finally determine the substantive rights of the parties but rather requires another trial for that purpose.

The appeal was quashed and transferred to the Divisional Court.

In a medical malpractice action concerning obstetrical negligence resulting in a child's severe brain damage, the jury found the defendant doctors breached the standard of care and caused the injuries.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 52.08(1) arguing there was no evidence to support the causation finding, or alternatively, that the jury's answers on causation were unresponsive.

The trial judge found there was some evidence to support causation, but held that the jury's answers on causation were fatally flawed because they merely repeated the standard of care answers (as improperly suggested by plaintiffs' counsel) and failed to explain how the negligence caused the brain damage.

As a result, the trial judge refused to enter judgment on the verdict and ordered a new trial.

The plaintiff moved for a further examination for discovery of the corporate representative of the New Vector defendants.

The initial examination was aborted because the representative produced had no personal knowledge, failed to prepare, and defence counsel improperly obstructed questioning.

The court found that the defendant's conduct in thwarting discovery constituted special circumstances justifying a second examination.

The motion was granted, and the defendant was ordered to produce a properly prepared representative and pay substantial indemnity costs of $35,000.

The applicant, an 80-year-old suffering from metastasized renal cancer and a broken pelvis, applied for judicial authorization for a physician-assisted death pursuant to the Carter constitutional exemption.

She was in intolerable pain with no hope of recovery and a prognosis of approximately three months to live.

The court found that she was competent, acting voluntarily, and met all the Carter criteria.

The application was granted, including a declaration that the assisting physicians were exempt from Criminal Code provisions and were not required to notify the coroner under the Coroners Act.

The applicant, Covanta, brought an application to set aside an arbitrator's decision to join two subcontractors to an ongoing arbitration between Covanta and the general contractor.

The arbitrator had joined the subcontractors under Article 17(5) of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.

Covanta argued the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction because the subcontractors were not parties to the arbitration agreement.

The Superior Court of Justice held that the arbitrator's decision was jurisdictional in nature and subject to review on a standard of correctness.

The Court found that the subcontractors were not parties to the arbitration agreement, as the subcontract did not properly incorporate the arbitration clause by reference.

The Court set aside the arbitrator's ruling and awarded costs of $50,000 to the applicant.