2 total
Further responding affidavits were refused to end repeated timetable extensions.
In a motor vehicle negligence action, the court addressed whether responding parties could file additional affidavit evidence as a sur-reply in response to the moving defendants’ reply evidence on a summary judgment motion.
The request required further amendments to a timetable that had already been revised multiple times through repeated case conferences.
Applying summary judgment burden principles for rear-end collisions and procedural fairness principles governing reply and sur-reply evidence, the court held the parties had already had a fair opportunity to put their best evidentiary record forward.
Emphasizing finality and proportionality, the court refused further evidentiary expansion and directed the matter to proceed on the existing schedule.
Plaintiff ordered to attend defence medical examinations outside her home city despite COVID-19 objections.
The defendants in a personal injury action arising from a slip and fall requested a chambers appointment to amend a timetable and compel the plaintiff to attend independent medical examinations with a neurologist and a physiatrist in Toronto and Mississauga.
The plaintiff, who resides in Kitchener, objected to the locations and raised concerns about COVID-19 waivers and transportation.
The court found the plaintiff's objections unreasonable, noting the action was commenced in Toronto.
The court ordered the plaintiff to attend the scheduled assessments and amended the timetable for the delivery of expert reports.
