Peter J. Cavanagh

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff driver claimed he was cut off by an unidentified vehicle, causing him to lose control and crash into a ditch.

The insurer argued the accident was solely the plaintiff's fault and that there was no corroborating evidence of an unidentified driver as required by the OPCF-44 Family Protection Endorsement.

The court heard viva voce evidence, including from a newly discovered independent eyewitness who had called 911.

The court found the eyewitness's testimony credible and reliable, corroborating the plaintiff's account.

The insurer's motion was dismissed, and partial summary judgment was granted to the plaintiffs, declaring the accident was caused by an unidentified driver and the evidentiary requirements of the OPCF-44 endorsement were met.

The moving party, a former non-equity partner at the responding party law firm, brought a motion as an intervenor seeking an order under Rule 45.02 for the payment into court of a specific fund.

The fund in question was a contingency fee payable to the law firm by a client, which the moving party claimed he was entitled to a portion of based on an employment and fee-splitting agreement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party's claim was essentially for damages for breach of contract rather than a legal right to a specific fund, and that the balance of convenience did not favour granting the order.

The Ontario College of Pharmacists brought an ex parte motion for an interim injunction and compliance order against a former pharmacist and her pharmacy corporation.

The respondent had previously undertaken to resign her registration and close or sell the pharmacy, but evidence showed she continued to operate the pharmacy and dispense narcotics.

The court granted the interim injunction, suspending the pharmacy's accreditation and authorizing the College to seize drugs and records, finding that irreparable harm is presumed when an unlicensed individual provides public health care services.

The defendant hospital brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to satisfy undertakings from examinations for discovery and to attend vocational and physiotherapy assessments.

The plaintiff opposed the assessments, arguing the proposed experts lacked specific medical expertise and the requests were delayed.

The court ordered the plaintiff to urgently fulfill the undertakings and attend the assessments, finding them necessary for trial fairness given the substantial loss of income and future care claims.