Court File and Parties
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Ryan Singh and Shanti Singh, Plaintiffs
AND:
Carmela Fiorio, Defendant
BEFORE: D.A. Wilson J.
COUNSEL: Ryan Moriarty and Hudson Chalmers, for the Plaintiffs
Natasha Skupsky, for the Defendant
HEARD via teleconference: January 28, 2022
ENDORSEMENT
Background
1This is a claim for damages by the 2 plaintiffs which was commenced under the Simplified Rules in May 2020. The action arises as a result of a motor vehicle accident that occurred in November 2018; liability is not in issue.
2Counsel attended examinations for discovery in November 2020 and the action was set down for trial thereafter. There was a pretrial before Associate Judge Josefo on August 19, 2021 and a date was fixed for trial, February 22, 2022. Counsel for the Defendant requested today’s case conference to ask for an adjournment of the trial date.
Defendant's Position
3Ms. Skupsky submits that the case is not ready for trial due to production issues. The notes of Ms. Singh’s treating psychiatrist pre-accident were only produced on December 2, 2021. The Plaintiff attended a defence medical with Dr. Ross on July 20, 2021 and he did not have the pre-accident notes. They have been provided to him, but he has not yet sent a supplementary report to Ms. Skupsky.
4Further, with respect to the other Plaintiff, Ryan Singh, he is advancing a loss of income claim yet the records of his previous employer, Rogers Communications, have not been produced. Ms. Skupsky acknowledges that the solicitor for the Plaintiffs has written numerous request letters to Rogers. She also wishes production of an accident benefits file from a previous accident.
5The Defendant brought an urgent motion pursuant to Rule 30.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure on January 4, 2022 before Associate Justice Ilchenko. The motion was adjourned sine die; the motion was not properly served. The Associate Judge noted that it was highly unlikely that any order made would be complied with prior to the trial.
Plaintiffs' Position
6The Plaintiffs oppose any adjournment of the trial and wish to proceed.
Analysis and Disposition
7This is a 4-day trial which is set to proceed under the Simplified Procedure. The Defendant has had examinations for discovery and at that time, the issues on the damages would have been clear. While I appreciate that the delivery of documentation may not have been ideal, the discoveries occurred more than a year ago. Counsel has had ample time to bring any production motion she felt was necessary. Similarly, the defence medical examination took place in July 2021. I accept that there were further notes from treating doctors that were only served at the beginning of December; however, that is almost 2 months ago and with a pending trial date of February 22, 2022, it is unclear to me why Ms. Skupsky has not obtained a supplementary report from Dr. Ross. It seems that counsel has not been dealing with this action cognizant of the approaching fixed trial date. Counsel can issue subpoenas for additional documentation that she requires that counsel for the Plaintiffs has been unable or unwilling to secure.
8I am not prepared to adjourn the trial date of February 22, 2022. In Toronto, fixed trial dates are only adjourned in extenuating circumstances which are not present here. I do order that the parties are to exchange lists of witnesses for trial along with will says of any lay witnesses on or before February 2, 2022. Any supplementary expert reports are to be served by February 2, 2022.
Date: January 28, 2022