Thomas Madison

This decision addresses cross-motions concerning undertakings and refusals arising from examinations for discovery in a property damage action.

The defendant sought to compel answers from the plaintiff regarding the incident, damages, and insurance, while the plaintiff brought a cross-motion seeking the defendant's corporate tax returns.

The court largely granted the defendant's requests for further answers from the plaintiff, including details about her son's involvement as a witness, the use of a home equity line of credit, her current address, and visitors who saw the damage.

However, the court dismissed the defendant's request for detailed time estimates on the plaintiff's use of damaged areas, deeming it disproportionate.

The plaintiff's cross-motion for the defendant's tax returns was dismissed as irrelevant.

Both parties were ordered to bear their own costs due to procedural non-compliance.

The defendants brought a motion for an order compelling the plaintiff to attend an independent medical examination (IME) with a neuropsychologist in Hamilton.

The plaintiff agreed to the IME and the choice of physician but sought accommodation due to childcare responsibilities and ongoing family and criminal proceedings.

The court, while acknowledging the defendants' entitlement to the IME, imposed conditions to accommodate the plaintiff, including covering transportation and childcare expenses, and allowing the assessment to be conducted over multiple days if necessary to respect her childcare commitments.