Sarah Russell

In a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident, the parties brought motions and cross-motions to resolve outstanding undertakings, refusals, and a proposed pleading amendment.

The court denied the defendant's request for the plaintiff's CAS and medical records, noting the plaintiff limited her Family Law Act claim.

The court ordered the defendant to produce MTO records and witness contact information but denied the request for the deceased defendant's medical records.

Finally, the court granted the defendant Estate leave to amend its statement of defence to plead plene administravit, protecting the estate trustees from personal liability, without requiring further discovery.

The plaintiff, who had pre-existing disabilities including hydrocephalus and kyphoscoliosis, suffered paraparesis after the defendant radiologists punctured his heart during a filter removal procedure.

Liability was admitted, and the trial proceeded as an assessment of damages.

The defendants argued the 'crumbling skull' doctrine applied, suggesting the plaintiff would have become wheelchair-bound regardless of their negligence.

The court rejected this argument, finding no cogent evidence to support it.

The court awarded substantial damages, including $250,000 in general damages for the plaintiff, $90,000 each to his parents for loss of care, guidance, and companionship, over $1.5 million for past attendant care, and over $5.7 million for future care costs, subject to a 15% negative contingency.

The plaintiffs brought a motion during a damages trial to exclude the evidence of the defendants' expert physiatrist, Dr. Anthony Burns.

The plaintiffs argued the expert's evidence was unreliable, biased, and failed to meet the requirements of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the White Burgess test.

The court found that the expert relied heavily on a chronology prepared by defence counsel rather than source documents, failed to review the complete medical file, and altered his opinion without proper notice.

The court concluded the expert failed in his duty to provide fair, objective, and non-partisan evidence, and excluded his testimony in its entirety.