Troy H. Lehman

During a trial on liability for injuries sustained by the plaintiff while pitching in a school softball tournament, the plaintiff brought a motion to exclude the expert evidence of the defendant school board's proposed expert on student physical health and safety.

The proposed expert opined that the standard of care was strictly defined by the OPHEA Safety Guidelines, which did not mandate face masks for pitchers.

The court excluded the expert evidence, finding it was not necessary as the jury could understand the facts and assess the foreseeable risks without her assistance.

Furthermore, the court found the evidence would likely distort the fact-finding process because the expert acted as an advocate, rigidly adhered to an incorrect legal standard, and offered opinions beyond her expertise.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle collision.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s prior conviction under the Highway Traffic Act for failing to yield the right of way precluded the civil claim and resolved the issue of liability.

The court held that the offence proceeding determined only whether the plaintiff failed to yield and did not address the manner of driving by the defendant.

As issues such as speed, passing behaviour, and whether the defendant had a last clear chance to avoid the collision remained unresolved, genuine issues requiring a trial existed.

The motion for summary judgment was therefore dismissed.

The moving defendants sought summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' negligence claim against the defendant driver.

The plaintiff was a passenger in the defendant's vehicle when an oncoming vehicle crossed the centre line, creating an emergency.

The defendant steered left to avoid a collision, but the oncoming vehicle swerved back, resulting in a head-on collision.

The court applied the 'full appreciation test' and the 'agony of collision' principle, concluding that the conflicting expert evidence and the factual determination of whether the defendant's evasive action was reasonable in the circumstances required a trial.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.