26 Feb Lamoureux v. Lightburn
These two actions arise from a three-car collision on September 25, 2012....
20 Nov Bagri v. Bagri
These two personal injury actions are proceeding to trial together in January 2016, pursuant to a consent order of October 21, 2010....
10 Nov Nordin v. Wong
THE COURT: The defendant in this personal injury action applies for an order that the plaintiff attend a continuation of her examination by the defendant to take place within seven days of the order made for such continuation. The action is set for trial on November 30 for five days....
02 Jul Mollaei v. Luo
This is an assessment of costs of the plaintiff following the settlement of two personal injury actions.I. BACKGROUND...
29 Apr Dholliwar v. Yu
The plaintiff was involved in three motor vehicle accidents between June 2 and August 16, 2011. He has settled his claims arising from the first two accidents. The third accident is the subject of this action in which the plaintiff claims damages for personal injury, including past and future wage loss and loss of earning capacity and opportunity to earn income. The defendants apply for production of settlement documentation relating to the claims from the June and July 2011 accidents. The defendants requested these documents at the plaintiffs examination for discovery. The plaintiff relies on the privilege attached to settlement documents. The defendants submit that privilege should be set aside to prevent double recovery by the plaintiff.BACKGROUND FACTS...
20 Dec Curak v. Brown
It was a busy morning in chambers when the parties appeared before me on the defendants application for an order that the plaintiff in this personal injury action attend for two independent medical examinations, the first booked for the following week. The application threatened to exceed the estimate provided by counsel, not an unusual circumstance but one which resulted in part of the application being adjourned for written submissions. Given that one of the examinations was scheduled for the following week and that the parties were in partial agreement, I made the order for the plaintiff to attend the two independent medical examinations as follows: (a) an examination by orthopaedic surgeon Dr. John Oliver on Friday December 3, 2010 at 1:00 p.m.; and (b) a work capacity evaluation with occupational therapist Jeff Padvaiskas on Monday January 10, 2011 at 8:30 a.m....
11 Feb Sooparayachetty v. Fox
In each of these actions, the defendants apply under Rule 14(6) (a) and (b) for the following orders:1. that the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim filed herein be struck out or the proceedings against the Defendants be dismissed or stayed on the grounds that the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim do not allege facts that, if true, would establish that the Court has jurisdiction over the Defendants in respect of the claims made against the Defendants in the herein action;2. that this action be dismissed or stayed on the ground that the Court does not have jurisdiction over the Defendants, in respect of the claims made against them in this action; and3. for costs if, and only to the extent that, application for and receipt of, costs does not constitute submission to the Courts jurisdiction.Background...