Meredith Harper

The defendant brought a motion to recover costs thrown away after the plaintiffs refused to sign consent forms at a scheduled defence medical examination, resulting in the examination's cancellation.

The plaintiffs had not been provided the consent forms in advance and were unable to reach their counsel for advice at the time of the appointment.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs acted reasonably in refusing to sign unfamiliar documents in an adversarial context without the opportunity to consult their lawyer.

The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the motion.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the jury notices filed by the defendants in two related actions: a motor vehicle accident claim and a broker negligence claim.

The plaintiffs argued the trial was too complex for a jury and cited uncertainties regarding jury trials due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court dismissed the motion, adopting a modified 'wait-and-see' approach, holding that it was premature to strike the jury notices for a trial scheduled seven months away, and that the actions were not too complex for a jury.

The defendant brought a motion to compel answers to undertakings and refusals regarding the plaintiff's expert report and social media accounts following a motor vehicle accident.

The court dismissed the request for the expert's foundational material and drafts, finding that the disclosure obligation under Rule 53.03(2.1) is not triggered until the plaintiff elects to call the expert at trial.

The court also dismissed the request for social media production, holding that the defendant failed to provide an evidentiary basis establishing that the private accounts contained relevant information.

The plaintiff was awarded costs of the motion.

The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to answer outstanding undertakings given at her examination for discovery, specifically regarding the production of business records.

The plaintiff argued the records were no longer relevant as she had abandoned her income loss claim and cited financial hardship.

The court granted the motion, holding that undertakings must be honoured once given pursuant to Rule 31.07(4), and that the business records remained relevant to determining whether the plaintiff met the threshold for serious permanent impairment.