Sandra Gail Drozd

The defendant Canada Life brought a motion for the plaintiff, who is self-represented and has a history of mental health issues, to undergo a capacity assessment.

The court, explaining its decision in simple language for the plaintiff, found that the plaintiff's capacity to manage the litigation was relevant and there was good reason to believe she might be incapable.

The motion was granted, ordering the plaintiff to attend a capacity assessment, with Canada Life bearing the costs.

The respondents requested to reactivate a human rights application that had been deferred pending the completion of related proceedings before the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB).

The HPARB proceedings having concluded without the applicant seeking judicial review, and the applicant agreeing that the matter should proceed, the Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application and set deadlines for filing amended pleadings.

In a personal injury action arising from a helicopter crash, the defendants brought several pre‑trial discovery and procedural motions shortly before trial.

The court ordered production of corporate income tax records relating to the plaintiff’s production company, confirmation from the plaintiff’s accountant regarding the production of corporate records, authorization for defence counsel to obtain contractual records relating to the plaintiff’s involvement with a film production, and permitted questioning regarding the plaintiff’s OHIP records.

However, the court refused the defendants’ request for a late independent medical examination by a neurologist, finding the request was not based on new issues and would likely delay the scheduled trial.

Costs submissions were permitted if the parties could not agree.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking an order compelling the responding defendants to provide particulars to allegations contained in their statement of defence and counterclaim.

The litigation concerned the validity of a transfer of the plaintiff’s interest in real property allegedly executed under a power of attorney, with the defendants asserting entitlement based on labour and financial contributions and alleging that the plaintiff had exhibited signs of dementia and diminished capacity.

The court held that the pleaded allegations were sufficiently vague that the plaintiff could not respond with anything more than a broad denial without further detail.

Applying established principles governing the function of particulars in pleadings, the court concluded that the requested particulars were necessary to define the issues and allow the plaintiff to plead intelligently.

The motion was granted and the responding defendants were ordered to deliver the demanded particulars.

The defendants sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from an interlocutory order requiring them to produce summaries of facts, observations, and conclusions contained in investigation reports listed in Schedule B of their affidavit of documents, along with will‑say statements of intended witnesses.

The moving parties argued the order improperly expanded documentary discovery by compelling disclosure of information contained in litigation‑privileged materials and effectively permitted indirect discovery outside the oral discovery process.

The court held that the order did not establish a new legal principle but was a fact‑specific procedural response to unusual circumstances, including late disclosure of Schedule B documents long after discoveries had occurred.

The information ordered produced was information that would have been available on examination for discovery under Rule 31.06.

Leave to appeal was therefore not warranted.

The applicant brought a human rights application alleging discrimination in medical treatment while the claimant was incarcerated.

The application had been deferred pending a related proceeding before the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB).

The respondents sought to reactivate the application.

The applicant requested to remove one doctor as a respondent and add another, having learned the correct identity of the attending physician.

The Tribunal granted the requests to reactivate, remove the incorrect respondent, and add the new respondent.

The Tribunal then deferred the application again pending the completion of the HPARB proceeding involving the newly added respondent.

In a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident, the defendant brought a motion seeking permission for the insurer’s claims adjuster to attend the plaintiff’s examination for discovery as an observer.

The plaintiff opposed the request, arguing that the insurer was a non-party and that the adjuster’s presence would increase the stress of the discovery process.

The court reviewed principles governing the attendance of non-parties at discoveries and concluded that the categories permitting attendance were not exhaustive and that the court retained discretion to allow attendance where appropriate.

Given the rational reasons advanced by the adjuster and the lack of evidence demonstrating prejudice or intimidation to the plaintiff, the court permitted the adjuster to attend as an observer only.

No costs were awarded.

The insurer brought a motion to stay the arbitration pending the insured's attendance at a proposed medical examination by a physiatrist.

The insured had previously been assessed by the same physiatrist, but subsequently submitted new medical reports from specialists diagnosing chronic pain syndrome and a complete inability to work.

The arbitrator found that the proposed examination was reasonably necessary to assist the insurer in determining the insured's entitlement to ongoing income replacement benefits in light of the significant new medical information.

However, the arbitrator declined to stay the arbitration, finding it premature to address the consequences of a potential failure to attend.