Patrick Joseph Poupore

The plaintiff brought two motions: (1) to add LEA Consulting Ltd. as a defendant, which proceeded with consent; and (2) to compel the defendant, His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario, represented by the Minister of Transportation, to answer undertakings and re-attend for continuation of oral examination for discovery at their own expense.

The defendant failed to disclose the involvement of LEA Consulting Ltd., an onsite contract administrator, and relevant documents prior to discovery.

The court found that this failure undermined the purpose and utility of the discovery and granted the motion to compel re-attendance at the defendant's expense.

The court awarded costs to the plaintiff in the amount of $4,243.15.

This decision addresses the costs arising from a successful motion by the plaintiff to amend her statement of claim and the dismissal of the defendant Kealey's motion to strike.

The plaintiff sought costs, arguing the motions were necessary due to the defendant's refusal to consent to amendments and that she had made a without-costs settlement offer.

The court found the plaintiff was the successful party and that her motion to amend was necessary.

The defendant Kealey was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs, fixed at $7,500.

The plaintiff, Dias, brought a motion to amend her statement of claim to substitute David Kealey for "John Doe" and to plead particulars of negligence.

Kealey opposed, arguing the proposed amendments introduced a new, time-barred cause of action and that the original pleading failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action against him.

The court applied the "plain and obvious" test for striking pleadings, finding that the original statement of claim, read generously, contained a sufficient factual matrix to support a negligence claim against Kealey, particularly given allegations of his intoxication leading to injury.

The court dismissed Kealey's motion to strike and granted Dias's motion to amend.

The plaintiff brought an action against her accident benefits insurer under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule and sought to avoid attending an oral examination for discovery due to alleged psychological harm.

The court held that the evidentiary record did not provide persuasive and compelling medical evidence that attendance for discovery, with appropriate accommodations, would cause significant psychological damage.

The court ordered that the plaintiff attend for examination for discovery and held that the defendant insurer was entitled to examine first under the Rules of Civil Procedure because it served the first affidavit of documents and notice of examination.

The court also ruled that an application for mediation under the Insurance Act does not automatically give rise to litigation privilege and does not, by itself, establish that litigation was reasonably contemplated.