Tammy Renee Ring

The plaintiff brought a motion on the eve of trial to remove the defendant's lead counsel of record, alleging that the defence lawyer improperly used Summonses to Witness to obtain pre-trial disclosure of confidential medical records.

The plaintiff argued that the cover letters accompanying the summonses coerced witnesses into providing documents before trial to avoid attending court during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a reasonably informed member of the public, reading the summons and cover letter as a whole, would not interpret them as an attempt to obtain improper pre-trial discovery.

The plaintiff's alternative request to quash the summonses was reserved to the trial judge.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a FSCO Director's Delegate decision upholding an Arbitrator's finding that the respondent suffered a catastrophic impairment.

The respondent had recorded a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 9 several days after a motor vehicle accident, which the insurer argued was confounded by medication and other injuries rather than brain impairment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the standard of review is reasonableness and that the SABS regulation uses the GCS score as a proxy measurement without requiring an inquiry into the patient's prognosis or the specific cause of the lowered score.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to amend their Statement of Claim to add additional defendants, including insurers, and to seek declaratory relief regarding entitlement to statutory accident benefits and uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage following a motor vehicle accident involving an uninsured driver.

The proposed insurers opposed the amendments, arguing that accident benefits claims required prior mediation and that there was insufficient evidence to support entitlement to coverage as dependent relatives under the relevant policies.

The court considered Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and whether the proposed amendments raised triable issues.

It held that there were serious and triable issues regarding potential coverage under the insurance policies and that denying the amendments would be premature.

The court granted leave to amend the Statement of Claim and allowed the proposed insurers to be added as defendants.

The plaintiffs in a personal injury action appealed an order requiring their expert witnesses to answer questions regarding the foundation and assumptions of their opinions during cross-examination on affidavits filed in response to a summary judgment motion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motions judge's ruling that cross-examination on an expert's affidavit should be subject to the same rules as other affiants and is not strictly limited to the four corners of the affidavit.