Monthly Archives: March 2012

Master Pope Refuses To Add Insurer in OPCF-44R Claim

Vogler v. Lemieux, 2012 ONSC 1692 is an interesting case and, to me, a bit puzzling. I am hoping that one of the readers of this blog can clear things up for me. The plaintiff was injured in a single … Continue reading

Posted in Auto, Uninsured or Underinsured | 2 Comments

Rule 53.03 Applies Only To “Litigation Experts”

In Continental v. J.J.’s Hospitality, 2012 ONSC 1751 (CanLII), Mr. Justice Edward J. Koke has provided the latest judicial interpretation of Rule 53.03, which deals with the evidence of expert witnesses. He held that that rule only applies to “litigation experts”, … Continue reading

Posted in Experts and Opinions | Leave a comment

Clarification of Jurisdiction of Masters On Motions for Summary Judgment in Wake of C.A.’s Decision in Combined Air

I”ve just come from a motion before Master Calum MacLeod, where he provided to me and to opposing counsel a copy of his reasons in 90 George St. v. Reliance Construction, 2012 ONSC 1171 (CanLII). Upon returning to my office however, … Continue reading

Posted in Practice and Procedure | Leave a comment

Justice Brown Lambastes Provincial Government’s “Poor Excuse of A System” for Document Management

I don’t often burst out laughing when reading reasons for judgment (tears are more likely), but today’s offering from Justice David M. Brown was an exception. In Romspen Investment Corporation v. 6176666 Canada Ltée, His Honour was riding one of his … Continue reading

Posted in Litigation Technology, Practice and Procedure | 1 Comment

C.A. Says Only “Damage” Necessary to Start Limitation Period, Not “Damages”

The language of the Limitations Act, 2002 continues to be interpreted by the courts and an important decision was handed down this week by the Court of Appeal. Hamilton (City) v. Metcalfe & Mansfield Capital Corporation was an appeal from a … Continue reading

Posted in Appeals, Commercial Litigation, Discoverability, Limitation Periods | 2 Comments

Master MacLeod Discusses Appropriate Procedure In Undertakings Motions

Kariouk v. Pombo was a motion by the plaintiff to compel plaintiffs to answer undertakings given in the course of examinations for discovery. A commonplace type of motion, to be sure. But it is because such motions occur so frequently … Continue reading

Posted in Costs, Discovery, Practice and Procedure | Leave a comment

C.A. Slams Duration of “GasTOPS” Action

The Court of Appeal has just released its decision in GasTOPS Ltd. v. Forsyth et al. This case is well-known in the East Region and arose out of the departure of a number of employees of a software company, GasTOPS, who … Continue reading

Posted in Litigation Technology | 1 Comment

Plaintiff Given Leave to Examine Defendant Under Rule 39.03 On Rule 25.11 Motion to Strike Statement of Claim

Khan v. Lee is an interesting decision of Master Joan Haberman. In this medical malpractice action, the defendant doctor had moved, under Rules 21.01 and 25.11, to strike the statement of claim. He filed no evidence on the motion. Counsel … Continue reading

Posted in Pleadings, Practice and Procedure, Professional Liability | Leave a comment

Rules Committee’s “Information for the Profession” on Hourly Rates Is Adjusted Upwards for Inflation

In First Capital (Canholdings) Corporation v. North American Property Group, 2012 ONSC 1359 (CanLII), Mr. Justice Robert Smith had to address the following issue: “Should partial indemnity costs be ordered at hourly rates in excess of the maximum rates set out … Continue reading

Posted in Costs | Leave a comment