Patrick J. Poupore

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss two actions arising from a motor vehicle accident in Ontario.

The defendant argued that because the deceased and the defendant were residents of Quebec, Quebec's no-fault automobile insurance regime and Civil Code should apply, precluding the tort actions.

The court dismissed the motion, applying the lex loci delicti rule from Tolofson v. Jensen.

The court held that Ontario substantive law applies to torts committed in Ontario, allowing the plaintiffs, including derivative claimants under the Family Law Act, to proceed with their actions.

The plaintiff brought a motion to adjourn a scheduled jury trial in a medical malpractice action after learning that a key expert witness would be unavailable on the trial date.

The defendants opposed the adjournment, arguing the unavailability resulted from the plaintiff’s counsel failing to notify the expert of the agreed trial date in a timely manner.

The court considered the discretionary test for adjournments and the need to balance the interests of the parties and the administration of justice.

Although the court criticized the plaintiff’s counsel’s conduct as inexcusable, it concluded the plaintiff would suffer prejudice if forced to proceed without the expert’s live testimony and there was no evidence of non‑compensable prejudice to the defendants.

The trial was adjourned and directed to be rescheduled peremptory on the plaintiff.

In a personal injury action, the defendants inadvertently disclosed a litigation‑privileged witness statement to the plaintiff’s counsel during documentary discovery.

Despite the document being listed in Schedule B of the affidavit of documents as privileged, plaintiff’s counsel reviewed and relied upon it during discovery and in litigation materials, and refused to return it for an extended period after the error was identified.

The court applied the framework from Celanese Canada Inc. v. Murray Demolition Corp. to determine whether counsel should be removed following the breach of privilege.

The court held that the privileged nature of the document remained intact, prejudice was presumed and not rebutted, and the plaintiff’s counsel’s conduct in reviewing and using the document aggravated the breach.

The plaintiff’s motion for leave to seek production of witness statement summaries after setting the matter down for trial was denied, and the plaintiff’s law firm was removed as counsel of record.

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action brought a motion for further documentary production.

He sought documents relating to the termination of his former supervisor, an unredacted complaint file from the employer’s Office of the President, and mortgage files of other bank clients referenced during discovery.

The court held that documents relating to the supervisor’s termination were relevant because they could support the plaintiff’s allegation that the supervisor condoned the conduct relied upon for termination.

The court also ordered production of the additional mortgage files, finding they were likely to be relied upon by the defendant and therefore relevant and producible, with privacy concerns addressed by the deemed undertaking rule.

However, the request for an unredacted copy of the Office of the President file was denied after judicial review confirmed that the redacted portions were protected by solicitor‑client privilege.