Monthly Archives: April 2010

Court Finds Insurer Not Bound in Tort Action By Positions It Took in SABS Dispute

In Anand v. Belanger, Justice David Stinson considered whether State Farm Insurance, which had been sued in this case by virtue of its uninsured motorist coverage, was bound by admissions that it had made about the plaintiff’s condition in its … Continue reading

Posted in Auto, Insurance News | Leave a comment

C.A. Splits 3-2 Against Routinely Allowing Recording of Defence Medical Exams

In Adams v. Cook, a five-member panel of the Court of Appeal declined to change the ground rules laid down in 1992, in Bellamy v. Johnson (1992), 8 O.R. (3d) 591(C.A.), as to when an audio recording of a defence medical examination … Continue reading

Posted in Discovery, Insurance News, Practice and Procedure | 1 Comment

C.A. Sends Mixed Messages on Substantial Indemnity Costs for Defendants

In the course of the last week, separate panels of the Court of Appeal have addressed the issue of whether a defendant’s offer to settle can produce an award of substantial indemnity costs when the plaintiff’s action has been dismissed. The … Continue reading

Posted in Costs | Leave a comment

Court Interprets New 7-Hour Limit on Examination for Discovery

In J. & P. Leveque Bros. v. Ontario, Madam Justice Templeton considered the new R. 31.05.1, which provides that “[n]o party shall, in conducting oral examinations for discovery, exceed a total of seven hours of examination, regardless of the number of … Continue reading

Posted in Discovery, Practice and Procedure | Leave a comment

Master Dash Discusses Counsel “Helping” Witness Being Examined for Discovery

In Madonis v. Dezotti, Master Ronald Dash discussed a practice problem that frequently occurs at examinations for discovery: counsel attempting to assist the witness by stating what he or she thinks the evidence should be. His reasons provide helpful guidelines … Continue reading

Posted in Discovery, Practice and Procedure | 1 Comment

Tort Insurer Can’t Call AB Doctors as Experts

In an important new decision, Mr. Justice J. Patrick Moore has refused to allow the defendant in a personal injury action to adduce expert testimony from three physicians who examined the plaintiff in connection with a claim for statutory accident … Continue reading

Posted in Auto, Evidence, Insurance News, Trial Procedure | 1 Comment