Sarah Naiman

The court issued a costs endorsement following a motion where the Moving Defendants sought to compel undertakings and defence medical examinations (DMEs).

The court found divided success: the Plaintiff succeeded in resisting the neurosurgical DME and the broad request for ongoing undertakings, while the Moving Defendants succeeded in compelling a physiatry DME.

The court determined costs on a partial indemnity basis, awarding the Plaintiff $7,933.23 and the Moving Defendants $1,180.63, reflecting the Plaintiff's greater overall success on the motion.

In a multi-party motor vehicle accident action, the plaintiffs and two of the defendants entered into a Pierringer agreement.

The non-settling defendants brought a motion to compel production of the agreement, redacted only as to quantum.

The settling parties argued that only the 'essential terms' needed to be disclosed and that the agreement itself was protected by settlement privilege.

The court granted the motion, finding that the non-settling defendants faced potential procedural prejudice and that the need to protect them outweighed the public interest in maintaining settlement privilege over the non-financial terms of the agreement.

The applicant sought a determination that he sustained a catastrophic impairment due to a psychological condition resulting from a 2014 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer argued the applicant was malingering and that any impairment stemmed from a prior 2011 accident.

Despite evidence of the applicant deliberately frustrating the respondent's psychological assessments, the Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's neuropsychiatrist, finding a marked deterioration in the applicant's mental health.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant suffered a Class 4 marked impairment in three spheres and that, but for the 2014 accident exacerbating his pre-existing condition, he would not have sustained a catastrophic impairment.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel answers to questions refused at the defendant's examination for discovery, to compel production of documents, and for leave to amend the statement of claim in a motor vehicle accident action.

The court ordered the defendant to disclose particulars of surveillance evidence before the plaintiff's examination, produce a redacted accident benefits application, and re-attend discovery regarding his opiate use.

The court also granted the plaintiff leave to amend the statement of claim to include allegations of impaired driving, punitive damages, and breaches of statutory settlement duties.