COURT FILE NO.: CV-17-00000200-0000

DATE: 2019 December 03

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

BRANDON LAMBERT, by his Litigation Guardian DIANE LAMBERT, DIANE LAMBERT and JORDON LAMBERT

Plaintiffs (Moving Parties)

– and –

MICHAEL MARACLE, JAMIE WALKER, ASHLEY KELSEY and AVIVA INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA, incorrectly named as AVIVA CANADA INC.

Defendants

John W. Wowk, for the Plaintiffs / Moving Parties

Robert K. McCartney, for the Defendant, Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, incorrectly named as Aviva Canada Inc.

Defendants, Michael Maracle, Jamie Walker and Ashley Kelsey, not appearing

HEARD at Belleville: November 26, 2019

MACLEOD-BELIVEAU j.

REASONS FOR DECISION

(Motion for Directions to determine the order of examinations for discovery)

Reasons for Decision

1This is a motion brought by the plaintiffs for an order compelling the defendant Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, incorrectly named as Aviva Canada Inc., (hereinafter "Aviva"), to be examined first and to produce an appropriate, further and better affidavit of documents including detailed schedules; for the notice of examination served by Aviva for the examinations for discovery of the plaintiffs on October 1, 2019 in Kingston to be struck; for costs; and for such further and other relief as the court deems just.

ISSUES:

Issues

2There are three issues in this case:

a. Whether the defendants, Michael Maracle, Jamie Walker, Ashley Kelsey, and Lianne Barbara Furlong, Vice President, Legal and Chief Litigation Counsel, from Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, should be compelled to attend for examinations for discovery on December 12, 2019, or such date as may be ordered by the court;

b. Whether the appointment set for examinations for discovery of the plaintiffs on October 1, 2019 should be struck and whether the certificate of non-attendance of the plaintiffs on that date should be struck; and

c. Whether Aviva should be compelled to produce an appropriate and further and better affidavit of documents, including detailed schedules, by a date to be ordered by the court.

RESULT:

Result

3The plaintiffs' motion is granted.

4The affidavit of documents sworn by Aviva on July 27, 2017 and served by Aviva on June 17, 2019 was deficient and not in compliance with the Rules. As a result of Aviva failing to serve an appropriate affidavit of documents, Aviva has not preserved for itself priority in conducting examinations for discovery first. Service of an appropriate affidavit of documents is an absolute requirement in order to preserve priority in conducting examinations for discovery.

5An order shall issue that the defendants, Michael Maracle, Jamie Walker, Ashley Kelsey, and Lianne Barbara Furlong (from Aviva) shall be compelled to attend for examinations for discovery. As Aviva is not available on December 12, 2019, the examinations for discovery of all parties shall take place within the approximate four-month period between February 17, 2020 and June 19, 2020 on consecutive days. The plaintiffs shall examine the defendants first to be followed immediately thereafter by the examination of all the plaintiffs by the defendant Aviva.

6The examinations for discovery of all of the plaintiffs and all the defendants shall take place in Kingston on consecutive days within the specified time period, unless otherwise specifically and unequivocally agreed to in writing by counsel. Once the dates are determined, the plaintiffs and Aviva shall serve their appropriate notices of examinations in accordance with the above order of directions and dates selected. If counsel are unable to agree upon the dates for the examinations for discovery by December 31, 2019, I may be spoken to and I will set the dates for the examinations of discovery to proceed, upon being requested to do so by either counsel.

7The plaintiffs are entitled to conduct their examinations for discovery of all the defendants first, in the order to be determined by the plaintiffs, such examinations to be held before the defendant Aviva examines the plaintiffs. The examinations of the plaintiffs shall be conducted in the order to be determined by the defendants.

8The notice of examination of the plaintiffs returnable October 1, 2019 in Kingston is struck and is of no force and effect. The certificate of non-attendance of the plaintiffs for examinations for discovery obtained by Aviva for October 1, 2019 is struck and is of no force and effect.

9The defendant Aviva shall be compelled to serve an appropriate and further and better affidavit of documents, including detailed schedules on or before January 15, 2020 in accordance with the Rules.

10Costs are reserved. If counsel are unable to agree on costs by December 31, 2019, counsel shall obtain a date for argument of the issue of costs before me from the Belleville trial coordinator between January 20, 2020 and February 14, 2020 to argue the issue of costs on the following terms:

(a) Both counsel shall serve and file their costs outline and any materials to be relied upon no later than 5 days before the hearing date as set by the court.

(b) The argument of the issue of costs shall be conducted by telephone conference held on the record.

(c) If there is non-compliance by any party, the issue of costs will be determined based upon the material filed as at the date set for the hearing of the argument on costs.

11If counsel wish to include a clause in this order to amend the style of cause to reflect the correct legal name of the defendant Aviva, to be Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, rather than Aviva Canada Inc., I am content that a clause be added to the order.

12All communications as a result of this order shall be through the trial coordinator of the Superior Court of Justice in Belleville, Ontario.

13The order as a result of this motion shall be submitted to the Belleville trial coordinator for review and direct signature by MacLeod-Beliveau, J.

POSITION OF THE PARTIES:

Position of the Parties

14The plaintiffs' position is that the defendant Aviva is not entitled to examine first based on its affidavit of documents served on June 4, 2019 as its affidavit of documents, on its face, is inappropriate, deficient, incomplete and not in compliance with the Rules. The plaintiffs' position is that the plaintiffs served a proper affidavit of documents first on September 27, 2019 and are therefore entitled under the Rules to conduct examinations for discovery the defendants first, before Aviva examines the plaintiffs. It is further the position of the plaintiffs that the appointment set by the defendant Aviva to examine the plaintiffs on October 1, 2019 be vacated and that Aviva be compelled to serve a further proper and better affidavit of documents by a date set by the court.

15The defendant Aviva's position is that it served a proper affidavit of documents first on June 4, 2019 and therefore is entitled to conduct examinations for discovery of the plaintiffs first. Aviva served its Notice of Examination on the plaintiffs returnable October 1, 2019 in Kingston. It is Aviva's position that its affidavit of documents which was served on June 4, 2019, but was in fact sworn on July 27, 2017, approximately two years prior, is an appropriate affidavit of documents and is in compliance with the Rules which entitles Aviva to take advantage of the right to examine the plaintiffs first.

16Aviva's further position is that all automobile policies are the same as set out in the regulations and that the failure to include the policy and its endorsements in its affidavit of documents is not a material omission. Aviva agrees in its submissions to serve a further and better affidavit of documents but remains firm in its position that Aviva's earlier affidavit of documents sworn July 27, 2017, and served June 4, 2019 entitles Aviva to examine the plaintiffs first.

17Aviva further submits that if Aviva is not allowed to examine first, that the plaintiffs will tailor their evidence to the information obtained in their further and better affidavit of documents and the evidence given at the defendants' examinations for discovery, and it will prejudice Aviva's case where liability is seriously contested on the basis of Aviva's defence position that Brandon Lambert was the driver of the vehicle and is therefore responsible for his own negligence.

18Aviva asks for dismissal of the plaintiffs' case or in the alternative that the plaintiffs be examined first in Kingston, and that the defendant Aviva be examined in Toronto on a mutually agreeable date, but not December 12, 2019 as Aviva has advised that its representative is not available for examination on December 12, 2019.

BACKGROUND FACTS:

Background Facts

19The affidavit of Lianne Barbara Furlong from Aviva advises that the legal name of the defendant Aviva is correctly named as Aviva Insurance Company of Canada.

20The plaintiff Brandon Lambert is a resident of Napanee, Ontario and was involved in a serious single car, motor vehicle accident on December 1, 2016 resulting in his catastrophic brain injury. The vehicle hit a hydro pole on Bells Road in the Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory, in the County of Hastings. Brandon was found at the side of the road closest to the passenger side of the vehicle. No other persons were found at the scene. Brandon has no memory of the accident. His statement of claim claims general damages of $20,000,000.00 plus special damages and other relief. The plaintiffs' position is that Brandon was a passenger in the vehicle. Liability is seriously at issue. Diane Lambert is Brandon's mother. Jordan Lambert is Brandon's brother.

21Michael Maracle is the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, a 1999 Saturn SL2. The Maracle vehicle was uninsured. The individually named defendants are all residents of Deseronto, Ontario. The defendant Michael Maracle is alleged in the statement of claim to be at the material time, the operator of the vehicle that he owned. Alternatively, Jamie Walker has been alleged to be the driver. Further alternatively, Ashley Kelsey has been alleged to be the driver. These three individually named defendants have been noted in default.

22The defendant Aviva served a statement of defence and cross-claim. Aviva claims that Brandon was the driver of the accident vehicle and that he is solely responsible for his own negligence. Aviva cross-claims against the individually named defendants. Aviva provided Brandon Lambert with automobile insurance policy coverage under which Aviva is obliged to provide insurance coverage to the plaintiffs including uninsured and/or underinsured coverage, and/or family protection coverage.

23Brandon's mother, Diane Lambert, retained plaintiffs' counsel of record. On January 11, 2017, Diane Lambert was provided with an automobile loss statement from Aviva after notifying Aviva of the accident. The loss statement refers to the policy of insurance, with $1,000,000 of coverage with five specific endorsements, namely, "ZCS1, ZDD5, 47, DISCF, and ZLOYD".

24The description of the loss includes a statement that the vehicle was registered to Michael Maracle as the owner and that he was not at the scene of the accident. The loss statement states that the driver left the scene of the accident and a passerby saw the accident and found Brandon lying by the vehicle. The loss statement refers to Brandon injuries as life threatening and that he was now out of ICU and in neurology. The statement of loss states that Brandon's injuries show that he was in the passenger seat at the time of the accident. Brandon is 6'4" tall and the driver's seat was too far forward for Brandon to be driving. The loss statement further refers to the fact that the owner of the vehicle, Michael Maracle, was not at the scene and that Brandon had borrowed the vehicle. The motor vehicle report states that Brandon was unconscious at the scene and put in an ambulance.

25The statement of claim was issued on June 12, 2017. The statement of claim referred to the policy number at issue. Michael Maracle and Ashley Kelsey were served July 4, 2017.

26On July 27, 2017, Aviva swore an affidavit of documents but did not serve it. The affidavit of documents made references in schedule "A" to the pleadings, the correspondence, the motor vehicle accident report, the plate history of the accident vehicle, the driver's record for Michael Maracle, and the name search for Jordan Lambert. Specifically, it did not include the policy of insurance or anything about the endorsements on the policy. Schedule 'B' lists various correspondence, the documentation from the adjuster's file, and colour photographs of the vehicle.

27Aviva served its statement of defence and cross-claim on August 23, 2017 together with a discovery plan. Jamie Walker was deemed served on December 20, 2017 by court order issued on November 24, 2017. The remaining individual defendants were served. On February 9, 2018, the plaintiffs responded to the proposed discovery plan and advised Aviva that the draft plan was not appropriate for this action. It was a "boiler plate" discovery plan used for a variety of actions and contained many items that were inapplicable and irrelevant. The plaintiffs advised they did not agree with the Aviva's discovery plan. Aviva to date has never responded.

28In March of 2018, the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee (hereinafter the "PGT") became guardian of property for Brandon and hired another lawyer to act as counsel for Brandon. Diane Lambert successfully challenged the guardianship appointment of the PGT. Diane Lambert was appointed Brandon's guardian of property by court order dated March 8, 2018. Diane Lambert then renewed her retainer of counsel of record for the plaintiffs. This process caused a delay of about one year.

29On May 29, 2019, examinations for discovery of the plaintiffs were agreed to take place on October 1, 2019. On June 4, 2019, a notice of examination was served on the plaintiffs by Aviva for October 1, 2019 in Belleville. Counsel then agreed to conduct the examinations in Kingston. On June 28, 2019, a new notice of examination was served by the defendants for October 1, 2019, but now to be held in Kingston. Counsel for the plaintiffs never served a notice of examination for October 1, 2019 and in error, did not name the three individually named defendants who were noted in default, on any notice of examination. The plaintiffs are clearly entitled to examine for discovery the three individually named defendants in the action who have been noted in default.

30On September 14, 2019, plaintiffs' counsel, who practices in Timmins, wrote to counsel for Aviva advising that the plaintiffs would be bringing a motion to compel the attendance for examination for discovery of the three individually named defendants and the defendant Aviva and requested re-scheduling of the date for examinations for discovery so that the examinations of all parties could take place at the same time before the end of 2019. Later, on September 24, 2019, counsel for Aviva, who practices in Toronto, advised that Aviva refused to agree because of the length of time the action had existed.

31On September 25, 2019, plaintiffs' counsel again wrote to defendant's counsel and requested all discoveries be done over a two-day period to limit the costs incurred by both sides. The plaintiffs were only asking for a short delay of a few months to reduce costs. The one-year delay caused by the PGT's involvement as Brandon's guardian of property was referenced in the letter. The plaintiffs advised that they would be bringing the motion to compel the three individually named defendants to be examined and to have the October 1, 2019 examination date vacated. The date suggested by the plaintiffs of December 12, 2019 is not agreeable to Aviva. No agreement was reached as to an actual date for the examinations to be held. The only agreement is that the plaintiffs are to be examined in Kingston.

32The plaintiffs noted the three individually named defendants in default on September 26, 2019. The plaintiffs' served their affidavit of documents on September 27, 2019. Counsel for Aviva attended in Kingston on October 1, 2019 and obtained a certificate of non-attendance for the examinations by the plaintiffs.

33This motion, dated November 1, 2019, was made returnable on November 26, 2019. The court is aware that contested civil motion dates in Belleville are extremely limited and there are none available until well into 2020. This motion was made returnable on November 26, 2019 where time for each matter is limited to a maximum of 20 minutes in total for the issues in the motion. As the court had the time to hear this motion at the end of that list, the motion proceeded on November 26, 2019 as a contested motion before me.

ANALYSIS:

Analysis

34Rule 1.04 (1) requires that the rules be liberally construed to secure the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of every civil proceeding on its merits.

35Pursuant to Rule 30.03(1) and (2), the affidavit of documents must disclose the full extent of the party's knowledge, information and belief all documents relevant to the matter in issue in the action that are or have been in the party's possession, control or power.

36Rule 31.04 (3) entitles the party who serves the first valid notice of examination to examine first. A notice of examination served before a sworn affidavit of documents is served is a nullity.

37Rule 31.04 provides direction as to when an examination of a party may be initiated, as follows:

Examination of Plaintiff

(1) A party who seeks to examine a plaintiff for discovery may serve a notice of examination under rule 34.04 or written questions under rule 35.01 only after delivering a statement of defence and, unless the parties agree otherwise, serving an affidavit of documents.

Examination of Defendant

(2) A party who seeks to examine a defendant for discovery may serve a notice of examination under rule 34.04 or written questions under rule 35.01 only after,

(a) the defendant has delivered a statement of defence and, unless the parties agree otherwise, the examining party has served an affidavit of documents; or

(b) the defendant has been noted in default.

Completion of Examination

(3) The party who first serves on another party a notice of examination under rule 34.04 or written questions under rule 35.01 may examine first and may complete the examination before being examined by another party, unless the court orders otherwise.

38In this case, the affidavit of documents served by Aviva did not disclose to the full extent all the documents within its possession, control, or power as at the date it was sworn on July 27, 2017. Diane Lambert's highly relevant policy of insurance with Aviva and its specific endorsements were not noted and were, I find, clearly relevant to the matters at issue. Those documents were within Aviva's possession, control or power as at July 27, 2017. Brandon is a named driver under Aviva's policy.

39I further find that the reasonable interpretation of the words "are in the party's knowledge, information and belief" in the Rules is as at the date and time that the affidavit of documents is served, and not the date it is sworn, if priority in the order of examinations for discovery is sought to be preserved by a defendant.

40I find that affidavit of documents served by Aviva on June 4, 2019, was inappropriate and deficient as at the date it was sworn and as at the date it was served. Aviva's affidavit of documents was two years out of date. I find it did not contain all the relevant documents in Aviva's possession, control or power as at the July 27, 2017 date when it was actually sworn as required by the Rules. I draw the inference, and I find that on a balance of probabilities, that Aviva's affidavit of documents did not contain all the relevant documents in Aviva's possession, control or power as at the June 4, 2019 date when it was served as required by the Rules.

41I find that the deficiencies as at both the July 27, 2017 date and as at the June 4, 2019 date, were occasioned for a tactical purpose, that being, preserving the right to examine first. I find that the service of an appropriate affidavit of documents is an absolute requirement in order to preserve priority in conducting examinations for discovery.

42I find that Aviva has failed to serve an appropriate affidavit of documents. I find Aviva's affidavit of documents was deficient and not in compliance with the Rules. The deficiencies in Aviva's affidavit of documents in this case render its affidavit of documents, sworn July 27, 2017 and served June 4, 2019 a nullity. I find Aviva has not preserved for itself priority in conducting examinations for discovery. As such, the plaintiffs, who have served an appropriate affidavit of documents are entitled to examine the defendants first under the Rules. (see the decision of Di Luca, J. distinguishable on its facts, in Ferguson v. Peel Mutual Insurance Company, 2017 ONSC, at para 7).

43As a result, Aviva's notice of examination of the plaintiffs for October 1, 2019 in Kingston, and the certificate of non-attendance by the plaintiffs obtained from the court reporter by Aviva are struck.

44Regardless of the prima facie right to determine the order of examinations under Rule 31.04, the Court retains its discretion to order otherwise as set out in Rule 31.04 (3) in any event. This leads to the question of whether or not the Court should exercise its discretion to allow Aviva to examine the plaintiffs first, regardless of the court's previous finding and what, if any, other orders are appropriate in this case.

45Aviva's position is that if the plaintiffs are allowed to examine first, that the plaintiffs will tailor their evidence to the prejudice of Aviva's defence. I specifically reject Aviva's position that if the plaintiffs are allowed to examine first, that it will allow the plaintiffs to tailor or "woodshed" their evidence. It is a suggestion that plaintiffs' counsel would improperly tell the plaintiffs what answers to give at examinations for discovery – in direct violation of Rule 4.03(1) of Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers practicing in Ontario – without any evidentiary basis to support it.

46There is a distinct difference between proper preparation assisting witnesses to understand the issues and documents, the types of questions that will be asked, reviewing and refreshing a witness' memory, and improper "woodshedding" in which answers are provided or suggested. (See the decision of Master C. MacLeod, as he then was, in Iroquois Falls Power Corp. v. Jacobs Canada Inc., 2006 35612 (ONSC), para. 18 and Note 11.)

47There is further, no evidence before me that supports Aviva's position. The evidence is that the plaintiff Brandon Lambert is brain injured and he has no memory of the accident. The statement of claim alleges that he was a passenger based on the nature of his injures and where he was found at the scene of the accident. The allegations against the three individually named defendants are in the alternative as the driver of the vehicle, as the plaintiff has no memory of who was driving. The risk that the plaintiffs will tailor their evidence to the examinations of the defendants is no higher than the risk that any witness who hears another's version of events and will tailor their evidence as a result. Any augmented recollections would not be difficult to challenge. (See the decision of Ramsay, J. in Ezeh v. Club Seventy-Seven, 2010 ONSC 4692 at paras. 8-9.)

48The Rules are established as a guide to the parties through the litigation process. Rule 1.04 gives the Court a "supervisory role to ensure the litigation does not descend into expensive and counter-productive procedural warfare". "The primary responsibility in meeting this objective lies with counsel". When counsel cannot agree on procedural matters, the court will intervene in its supervisory role and exercise its discretion accordingly. (See the decision of Epstein, J, as she then was, in George v. Harris, [1999] O.J. No. 4544 (Ont. S.C.) at paras. 18-19.)

49I do not find that the facts of this case warrant the exercise of my discretion to change the order of examinations for discovery. The plaintiffs have complied with the Rules as to service of their appropriate affidavit of documents. As I have found in this case, Aviva has not complied with the Rules in terms of serving an appropriate affidavit of documents.

50This case does warrant, however, the exercise of my discretion to make an order to control the procedural warfare that has ensued. In the exercise of my discretion, I order that the examinations of the plaintiffs and all the defendants be held within a defined, short time frame, in Kingston, and further that the examinations of the four defendants by the plaintiffs shall proceed first in the order to be decided upon by the plaintiffs, to be immediately followed by the examination of the plaintiffs by the defendant Aviva, in the order to be decided upon by Aviva.

51This order is in accordance with Rule 1.04 (1) to secure the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of every civil proceeding on its merits. This order will minimize the overall expense to the parties, ensure fairness to all the parties, and move this case forward beyond its current impasse, to allow for a just determination of the issues in this case by the Court on the merits.

SUMMARY:

Summary

52Aviva has failed to serve an appropriate affidavit of documents in accordance with the Rules. As a result, Aviva has not preserved for itself priority in conducting the examinations of the plaintiffs first. The plaintiffs shall be entitled to examine the four defendants first as specifically ordered herein.

53The notice of examination of the plaintiffs for October 1, 2019 and the certificate of non-attendance by the plaintiffs obtained by Aviva are both struck and are of no force and effect.

54Aviva shall serve an appropriate, and further and better affidavit of documents on or before January 15, 2020 in accordance with the Rules.

COSTS:

Costs

55If counsel are unable to agree on costs by December 31, 2019, counsel shall obtain a date for argument of the issue of costs before me from the Belleville trial coordinator between January 20, 2020 and February 14, 2020 to argue the issue of costs on the following terms:

a. Both counsel shall serve and file their costs outline and any materials to be relied upon no later than 5 days before the hearing date as set by the court.

b. The argument of the issue of costs shall be conducted by telephone conference held on the record.

c. If there is non- compliance by any party, the issue of costs will be determined based on the material filed as at the date set for the hearing.

ORDER TO ISSUE:

Order to Issue

56The defendants, Michael Maracle, Jamie Walker, Ashley Kelsey, and Lianne Barbara Furlong (from Aviva) shall be compelled to attend for examinations for discovery. As Aviva is not available on December 12, 2019, the examinations for discovery of all parties shall take place within the approximate four-month period between February 17, 2020 and June 19, 2020 on consecutive days. The plaintiffs shall examine the defendants first to be followed immediately thereafter by the examination of all the plaintiffs by the defendant Aviva.

57The examinations for discovery of all of the plaintiffs and all the defendants shall take place in Kingston on consecutive days within the specified time period, unless otherwise specifically and unequivocally agreed to in writing by counsel. Once the dates are determined, the plaintiffs and Aviva shall serve their appropriate notices of examinations in accordance with the above order of directions and dates selected. If counsel are unable to agree upon the dates for the examinations for discovery by December 31, 2019, I may be spoken to and I will set the dates for the examinations of discovery to proceed, upon being requested to do so by either counsel.

58The plaintiffs are entitled to conduct their examinations for discovery of all the defendants first, in the order to be determined by the plaintiffs, such examinations to be held before the defendant Aviva examines the plaintiffs. The examinations of the plaintiffs shall be conducted in the order to be determined by the defendants.

59The notice of examination of the plaintiffs returnable October 1, 2019 in Kingston is struck and is of no force and effect. The certificate of non-attendance of the plaintiffs for examinations for discovery obtained by Aviva for October 1, 2019 is struck and is of no force and effect.

60The defendant Aviva shall by compelled to serve an appropriate and further and better affidavit of documents, including detailed schedules on or before January 15, 2020 in accordance with the Rules.

61Costs are reserved. If counsel are unable to agree on costs by December 31, 2019, counsel shall obtain a date for argument of the issue of costs before me from the Belleville Trial coordinator between January 20, 2020 and February 14, 2020 to argue the issue of costs on the following terms:

a. Both counsel shall serve and file their costs outline and any materials to be relied upon no later than 5 days before the hearing date as set by the court.

b. The argument of the issue of costs shall be conducted by telephone conference held on the record.

c. If there is non-compliance by any party, the issue of costs will be determined based upon the material filed as at the date set for the hearing of the argument on costs.

62If counsel wish to include a clause in this order to amend the style of cause to reflect the correct legal name of the defendant Aviva, to be Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, rather than Aviva Canada Inc., I am content that a clause be added to the order.

63All communications as a result of this order shall be through the trial coordinator of the Superior Court of Justice in Belleville, Ontario.

64The order as a result of this motion shall be submitted to the Belleville trial coordinator for review and direct signature by MacLeod-Beliveau, J.

Madam Justice H. MacLeod-Beliveau

Released: December 3, 2019

COURT FILE NO.: CV-17-00000200-0000

DATE: 2019 December 03

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

BRANDON LAMBERT, by his Litigation Guardian DIANE LAMBERT, DIANE LAMBERT and JORDON LAMBERT

Plaintiffs (Moving Parties)

– and –

MICHAEL MARACLE, JAMIE WALKER, ASHLEY KELSEY and AVIVA INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA incorrectly named as AVIVA CANADA INC.

Defendants

rEASONS FOR DECISION

(Motion for Directions to determine the order of examinations for discovery)

MacLeod-Beliveau J.