Leave Required for Refusals Motion After Set Down

Does a party need leave to continue a refusals motion after it has set the action down?

In Jetport v. Jones Brown, 2013 ONSC 2740 (S.C.J.), the parties brought motions seeking answers to questions refused on examination for discovery.  Although the motions were commenced in May 2012, they were not completed and were adjourned to November 2012.  They were still not completed and further dates in April 2013 then October 2013 were scheduled.  In February 2013, trial was scheduled for May 2015.  

One of the issues on the motion was whether the plaintiff required leave to bring the motion pursuant to r. 48.04(1) since it had set the action down for trial.  The plaintiff argued that it did not require leave based on rule 48.04(2), which provides that r. 48.04(1) does not relieve a party from any obligation imposed by r. 31.07 (failure to answer on discovery).

Master Graham held that the plaintiff required leave.  There is no obligation on a party to answer questions refused on discovery and therefore a motion to compel answers does not fall within s. 48.04(2) so a party that has set the matter down must seek leave to initiate or continue a motion to compel answers to refusals. 

It appears there are two differing lines of case law on this issue.  Counsel should be cautious about setting an action down if there are outstanding refusals they wish to pursue.

Videotaping Examinations for Discovery

In what circumstances will a court permit examinations for discovery to be videotaped?

J.M. v. Clouthier, 2013 ONSC 155 (S.C.J.)

This action arose out of allegations of historical sexual assault.  The defendant was in his 70s and had diabetes and high blood pressure, although he submitted evidence that he had no current health issues.  The plaintiff wished to videotape the defendant's examination for use at trial in case the defendant was not available to testify by the time of trial.  The defendant argued that the dynamic of the examination for discovery would change, forcing him to incur more cost in preparation time, and the editing and splicing of video to be shown at trial could be prejudicial to him.
The motion was brought under r. 34.19, which permits pre-trial examinations by videotape "by order of the court", rather than r. 36, which permits evidence to be taken de bene esse.  A witness examined under r. 36 may be examined, cross-examined and re-examined in the same manner as a witness at trial. 
Given the technology available, one could imagine that more examinations for discovery might be amenable to videotape, particularly as demonstrative evidence is readily accepted and the trier of fact is likely to be comfortable with and perhaps even absorb visual information more readily than reading in transcripts.
Given the technology available, one could imagine that more examinations for discovery might be amenable to videotape, particularly as demonstrative evidence is readily accepted and the trier of fact is likely to be comfortable with and perhaps even absorb visual information more readily than reading in transcripts.


Justice Hennessy allowed the motion.  Technical issues could be dealt with by the trial judge. The Court was not convinced there would be substantially more time or cost involved in videotaping the examination, and the video could be useful in terms of showing documents, photographs or charts.  There was a higher than normal probability that the defendant would not be available at trial given his age and health status.  The video was permitted under r. 34 rather than r. 36. 

Examination for Discovery: Attendance of Parties

When a party has selected an individual to be examined on behalf of a corporation, is another corporate representative entitled to attend to observe discoveries?

In Cody v. Culley 2013 ONSC 199 (S.C.J.), the issue was whether a corporate representative could attend the examination for discovery of the individual chosen to be examined by the opposing party.  The plaintiffs argued that a corporation cannot have a different representative attend discoveries when the adverse party has selected a representative.  Master Glustein permitted the representative to attend.  A corporation has the right to attend examinations for discovery as an independent legal entity.  The corporate representative chosen by the adverse party is not required to have any decision-making power and a corporation may want someone at the discoveries who can decide litigation issues or at least report back to management for such decisions.  The attendance of such an individual could assist in the settlement process or provide more informed instructions to counsel.  The individual would not be attending to be examined, but to be the person who acts on behalf of the corporation to assist in the litigation decision-making process.

This decision could be useful to those representing corporate entities such as municipalities who wish to have a member of the Corporation observe discoveries to get a sense not only what the evidence might be but also how effective the witness may be.

Appellate Jurisdiction

Under the Courts of Justice Act, appeals relating to amounts greater than $50,000 must be made to the Court of Appeal.  Appeals of judgments relating to amounts under $50,000 are to the Divisional Court.  Where only a portion of a judgment is appealed, does the jurisdiction change?

In Grammatico v. Chambers, 2012 ONSC 6518 (Div. Ct.), the parties disagreed on whether the proper court to hear an appeal was the Divisional Court or the Court of Appeal.  The substantive judgment involved sums greater than $50,000, the threshold imposed by s. 19(1.2) of the Courts of Justice Act for appeals to the Court of Appeal. The defendant argued that it sought to appeal an interest component relating to costs, rather than the substantive judgment.  Since the amount would be less than $50,000 the defendant's position was that the appeal was to the Divisional Court.

Justice Eberhard held that the appeal was to the Court of Appeal.  The jurisdiction for appeal must be determined by the aggregate of the sums awarded.  The fact that only one part of the decision was under appeal did not determine jurisdiction.

Restricting Summary Judgment

Are courts beginning to restrict the use of summary judgment?

Justice Brown took the opportunity to comment on summary judgment in a decision encompassing two cases, George Weston Limited v. Domtar Inc and 1318214 Ontario Limited v. Sobeys Capital Inc., 2012 ONSC 5001 (S.C.J.).  These were two cases from the Commerical List in Toronto where counsel sought to schedule summary judgment motions.  In George Weston, the plaintiff sought to schedule a summary judgment motion prior to examinations for discovery.  In 1318214 Ontario, discoveries were mostly complete and when the plaintiff sought to set the matter down for trial, the defendant advised it intended to bring a motion for partial summary judgment to limit the issues for trial.

Justice Brown laments the motion culture in Toronto and what he sees as a reluctance of counsel, especially counsel who have practiced for less than 15 years, to bring cases to trial.  He suggests that instead of bringing summary judgment motions, counsel should take more cases to trial and that courts should facilitate the process by approving innovative ways of proceeding to trial; for example, evidence could be a hybrid of written and viva voce evidence.

It will be interesting to see if other judges share Justice Brown's concerns and if courts will start restricting the use of summary judgment motions.  Defence counsel and insurers will need to carefully assess each case to determine whether the appropriate way is to proceed by way of summary judgment or whether it might be more beneficial to simply proceed to trial. 

Withdrawing Deemed Admissions

When will a party be permitted to withdraw deemed admissions arising from the failure to respond to a Request to Admit?

In Epstein Equestrian Enterprises Inc. v. Cyro Canada Inc., 2012 ONSC 4653 (S.C.J.), the plaintiff served a Request to Admit eleven days before trial was scheduled to begin in 2010.  Trial was adjourned initially for one week and then again until 2012.  One of the defendants, Jonkman, failed to respond to the Request to Admit.  Rule 51.02(1) provides that a party is deemed to admit the contents of a Request to Admit if it does not respond to it within 20 days after it is served.  Jonkman sought to either set aside the Request to Admit or to withdraw the admissions.

Justice Morgan held that even though the Request to Admit was not served 20 days before trial, once the trial was adjourned and did not start for 20 days, the deeming provision applied. The main issue therefore centred on whether Jonkman was entitled to withdraw its admissions. The court may grant leave to withdraw the admissions if the following conditions are met:

1. The proposed change raises a triable issue;
2. There is a reasonable explanation for the change of position; and
3. The withdrawal will not result in any prejudice that cannot be compensated for in costs. (citing Antipas v. Coroneos, 1988 CarswellOnt 358)

Justice Morgan permitted the admissions to be withdrawn. At the time the Request was served, Jonkman was basically without legal representation as its counsel was in the process of being removed from the record. It had instructed counsel not to respond to the Request to Admit.  It subsequently brought a coverage application and was now being defended by an insurer.  The plaintiff supported the coverage application and must have understood that if coverage was achieved, a defence would be pursued. Jonkman's new counsel and insurer were unaware of the Request Admit and it would be unable to defend itself if the admissions stood.  The coverage application had been settled, and Justice Morgan speculated that the insurer's position may have been different had it known that Jonkman had effectively deprived itself of a defence by failing to respond to a wide ranging Request to Admit.

Justice Morgan was of the view that any prejudice to the plaintiff would not be inordinate as a trial would have been needed to canvas issues with the co-defendant in any event. The plaintiff further argued it was prejudiced as it had entered into a Pierringer Agreement with the remaining defendants and was concerned Jonkman would attempt to pin liability on those parties at trial. Justice Morgan held that the plaintiff had previously assumed Jonkman was insolvent when it entered the settlement and so this factor was to the plaintiff's benefit not prejudice.  The admissions were withdrawn.

Actions by Insured against Insurer – Limitation Period not always Certain

Shaver v. Co-operators General Insurance Co. [2011] AJ No. 1411

Mr. Shaver was injured in a three vehicle accident on July 14, 2000 with one other identified driver. The Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund accepted liability for the accident and consented to a partial judgement in Mr. Shaver’s favour for $100,000.00. This judgement was entered on January 19, 2010.

Mr. Shaver found this compensation to be inadequate and issued a claim against his insurer, the Co-operators, on July 29, 2010 based on the SEF 44 endorsement in his policy:

Every action...against the insurer...under this endorsement shall be commenced [within 2 years] from the date upon which the eligible claimant...knew or ought to have known that the quantum of the claims with respect to an insured person exceed the minimum limits for motor vehicle liability insurance in the jurisdiction in which the accident occurred.

The Co-operators brought a summary judgment motion in Alberta arguing that Mr. Shaver was out of time as more than 10 years had passed since the claim arose. Mr. Shaver argued that his claim against the Co-operators arose only on January 19, 2010.

The court held that the limitation period in this endorsement allowed an injured person to sue later than the ultimate 10 year statutory limitation period in cases where the insured learned of inadequate insurance or of total claims exceeding the insurance limits after the expiry of that limitation period. The Co-operators appealed this decision to the Alberta Court of Appeal.

The Alberta Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision, citing the principle provided by the Alberta Court of Appeal in Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co., [1994] AJ No. 126:

An insured’s claim against his own insurer arises not at the time of the accident, but when he knows, or should have known, that the tortfeasor’s coverage will be inadequate to cover the insured’s damages.

In the case at hand, both parties agreed that it was not until January 19, 2010 that Mr. Shaver knew that the torfeasor’s coverage would not be sufficient.

- Kristen Dearlove, Student-at-Law

Court of Appeal - Striking a Jury Notice

There is an interesting recent Court of Appeal decision in which the court discusses the appropriateness of a jury notice where there is a significant pre-accident medical condition. In Placzek v Green, (January 26, 2012, Ontario Court of Appeal) the plaintiff was injured in a rear end collision. The plaintiff had suffered from "severe fibromyalgia" for many years before the accident. The defendant argued that, to the extent that the plaintiff's physical problems interfered with her life after the accident, both problems were attributable in whole or in the main to the serious pre-existing condition and not to the relatively minor accident involving the vehicle driven by the defendant.

The trial judge struck the jury at the outset of the trial and held that, with respect to damages, despite the plaintiff's prior physical problems, the injuries suffered as a result of the car accident had caused significant problems for the plaintiff. The trial judge awarded damages in the amount of $919,237.

The defendant appealed on the basis that the trial judge should not have discharged the jury and that she did not quantify the damages on the basis of a rational analysis of the evidence.

With respect to discharging the jury, the Court of Appeal pointed out that the decision to discharge a jury is a discretionary one and that the court will defer to the exercise of that discretion unless it is shown that it was exercised on a wrong principle or that the exercise in the circumstances can be properly characterized as arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable.

In this case, the trial judge dismissed the jury on the basis of the anticipated complexity of the evidence to come relevant to the damage assessment. The complexity arose out of the plaintiff's pre-existing medical condition and the need to determine the impact of that condition on the plaintiff's post accident medical condition. In addition, there was competing expert evidence relating to the plaintiff's lost income and loss of future income claims. The plaintiff was a self-employed realtor and there were several factual variables relevant to her lost income claims. Finally there was competing and somewhat complex medical, engineering and biomedical evidence.

The Court of Appeal acknowledged that the defendant had made a powerful argument in support of his position that this was not really a complicated case at all, but found that they were unable to describe the trial judge's characterization of the evidentiary complexity as arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. The Court of Appeal acknowledged that other judges might have reached a different assessment of the complexity of the evidence and declined to strike the jury, but that is not a basis upon which the trial judge's exercise of her discretion can be interfered with.

Of interest, the Court of Appeal went on to discuss other factors which the trial judge thought supported the exercise of her discretion in favor of striking the jury. For example, the Court of Appeal was of the view that the manner in which some of the evidence might be put before the jury and the advantages or disadvantages that one side or the other might have as a consequence, is irrelevant to the decision as to whether the jury should be struck before the trial started. Also, concerns about the position taken by the defendant with respect to liability could not provide any basis for striking a jury.

However, because the trial judge made it clear in her reasons that she struck the jury because of the anticipated evidentiary complexity on matters relating to damages, errors in respect of other matters considered did not taint the exercise of the trial judge's discretion.

With respect to the second ground of appeal, the defendant argued that the trial judge did not attempt to quantify the damages based on a critical assessment of the evidence, but instead simply picked a point somewhere in the middle between the various scenarios advanced by the parties. The Court of Appeal gave short shrift to that argument which apparently did not have much basis in evidence.

This case should be of some concern to defendants who believe that their cases are best determined by a jury. In most injury cases, certainly most cases which proceed to trial, there are issues relating to pre-existing medical conditions and there are issues relating to the calculation of future lost income. We certainly hope that Courts will not develop the habit of striking juries on those types of cases.

- Colin Osterberg

Advancing a claim for Contribution and Indemnity as Equitable Set-off

Goma v. Raghunanan [2011] O.J. No. 4916

Motion to amend Statement of Defence

This was a very clever motion by defendant’s counsel to add a claim for contribution and indemnity where the limitation period to start a counterclaim had passed.

This case involves a motor vehicle accident where there were two injured plaintiffs, the driver and a passenger. The defendants pleaded contributory negligence against the driver but neglected to counterclaim for contribution and indemnity against the passenger for her injuries.

When they realized the oversight, the plaintiff’s refused to consent to adding a counterclaim; the limitation period to counterclaim had passed.

The defendants decided to bring a motion to amend the statement of defence to add a claim for equitable set-off against the plaintiff. They assert that the s.18(1) Limitations Act limitation period does not apply.

Master Dash was bound by the decisive statements of a superior court, which held that claims for equitable set-off are not subject to limitation periods. See Canada Trustco Mortgage Co. v. Pierce Estate, [2005] O.J. No. 1886, 197 O.A.C. (C.A.) and Spiral Aviation Training Co. v. Attorney General of Canada, 2010 ONSC 2581.

However, after examining the test for equitable set-off and the case law presented by counsel, Master Dash held that the defendant’s could not meet the test. Specifically, the claim for contribution does not go to the root of the plaintiff’s claim for damages.

He concluded that a defendant cannot claim contribution and indemnity against one plaintiff for damages awarded to another plaintiff by pleading equitable set-off in the statement of defence; this must be done by counterclaim, and the defendants were out of time to advance a counterclaim.

Rule 26.01 allows for amendments that are “legally tenable”. Amendments must be granted “unless the claim is clearly impossible of success”. Master Dash determined that because the claim for equitable set-off cannot succeed, the motion must be denied.

- Alison McBurney

Summary Judgment - Costs

We continue our discussion of the Court of Appeal's decision in Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch, 2011 ONCA 764.

The former r. 20 provided that a party that was unsuccessful on a summary judgment motion was liable to pay substantial indemnity costs. The 2010 amendments eliminated the presumption of substantial indemnity costs.

The Court of Appeal commented on the costs rule as follows:

[67] As a result of the amendments to rule 20.06, the onus is now on the party seeking substantial indemnity costs to convince the court that the other side acted unreasonably or in bad faith for the purpose of delay in bringing or responding to a motion for summary judgment. This amendment removes a disincentive to litigants from using Rule 20 by eliminating the presumption that they will face substantial indemnity costs for bringing an unsuccessful motion for summary judgment. However, as the jurisprudence becomes more settled on when it is appropriate to move for summary judgment, the reasonableness of the decision to move for summary judgment or to resist such a motion will be more closely scrutinized by the court in imposing cost orders under rule 20.06.

It seems that this paragraph suggests that courts will revert back to substantial indemnity costs as a body of case law develops. This will be an important consideration when deciding whether to bring a summary judgment motion or not.

- Tara Pollitt

Summary Judgment - Simplified Rules

This is our third post on the Court of Appeal's decision in Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch, 2011 ONCA 764.

The Court seems to suggest that summary judgment may not be appropriate generally in Simplified Rules actions. The Court stated that although in appropriate cases, a motion for summary judgment in a r. 76 action may be a useful tool to promote the efficient disposition of cases, "it will often be the case that bringing a motion for summary judgment will conflict with the efficiency that can be achieved by simply following the abridged procedures in Rule 76." The Court held that summary judgment in r. 76 cases should be discouraged where there is competing evidence from multiple witnesses, the evaluation of which would benefit from cross-examination, or where oral evidence is clearly needed to decide certain issues. In many cases, the better course is to proceed to a speedy trial.

The Court did qualify its comments by indicating that it was not stating that summary judgment could never be used in Simplified Rules actions; in a document driven case, or in a case where there is limited contested evidence, both the full appreciation test and the efficiency rationale may be served by granting summary judgment in a simplified procedure action.

Given the Court's comments, it would seem that few summary judgment motions will be brought in Simplified Procedure actions.

- Tara Pollitt

Summary Judgment - Oral Evidence

In this post, we continue our discussion of the Court of Appeal's decision in Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch, 2011 ONCA 764.

Rule 20.04(2.2) permits a judge to hear oral evidence on a summary judgment motion. The Court provided guidance on when this discretion may be exercised.

The Court held that a party that moves for summary judgment must be in a position to present a case capable of being decided on a paper record. The motions judge can decide if he or she requires viva voce evidence under r. 20.04(2.2). The purpose of the rule is not to allow a party to enhance the record it has put before the court.

An order for oral evidence will generally be appropriate where the judge concludes the exercise of powers under r. 20.04(2.1) will be facilitated by hearing oral evidence of a limited number of witnesses on one or more specific, discrete and likely determinative issues.

An order under r. 20.04(2.2) may be appropriate where:

(1) Oral evidence can be obtained from a small number of witnesses and gathered in a manageable period of time;
(2) Any issue to be dealt with by presenting oral evidence is likely to have a
significant impact on whether the summary judgment motion is granted; and
(3) Any such issue is narrow and discrete – i.e., the issue can be separately decided and is not enmeshed with other issues on the motion.

- Tara Pollitt

Court of Appeal comments on the new summary judgment rule

The Court of Appeal has now released its decision regarding the new summary judgment rule. The appeal was heard before a five panel Court and pertained to five action. It is released under the name Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch, 2011 ONCA 764.

The Court held that there are three types of cases that are amenable to summary judgment:

1. Where the parties agree it is appropriate to determine an action by way of summary judgment (para. 41);
2. Claims or defences that are shown to have no merit (para. 42); and
3. Where the trial process is not required in the interest of justice (para. 44).

It is not necessary for the judge to categorize the type of of case in question. In fact, the Court held that the latter two types of cases are not to be viewed as discrete compartments.

The test for summary judgment is the "full appreciation test". The motions judge must ask "can the full appreciation of the evidence and issues that is required to make dispositive findings be
achieved by way of summary judgment, or can this full appreciation only be achieved by
way of a trial?" (para. 50). In cases that call for multiple findings of facts emanating from a number of witnesses and found in a voluminous record, summary judgment is not a substitute for the trial process. On the other hand, the full appreciation test may be met in document-driven cases with limited testimonial evidence, cases with limited contentious factual issues or where the record can be supplemented to the requisite degree at the motion judge's direction by hearing oral evidence on discrete issues.

It remains to be seen how this will impact summary judgment motions going forward. Are judges going to be more reluctant to grant summary judgment?

- Tara Pollitt

The Canadian Institute of Actuaries’ Recommendations to the Rules Committee on the Prescribed Discount Rate and Prejudgment Interest

On June 1, 2011 the Canadian Institute of Actuaries (CIA) submitted their observations and recommendations to the Civil Rules Committee with respect to the Committee’s review of rules 52.09 and 53.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure (“the Rules”). The CIA reviewed these rules from the perspective of today’s economy − a low interest rate environment.

Rule 52.09(1) lays out how the discount rate is to be calculated for awards for future pecuniary damages in order to account for investment and price inflation rates. The CIA pointed out that the prescribed interest rate in Ontario for the first 15 years is lower than any other province or territory where discount rates are prescribed for this purpose. As a result, since interest rates are at historically low levels, a plaintiff will receive a higher settlement in Ontario than a plaintiff in another province or territory.

Rule 52.09(1) provides for a negative adjustment of 1%. This negative adjustment is a result of a belief in 2000 that rates of return for real return bonds were higher than the true underlying expected real rate of return. The CIA believes that this may not be a valid justification in today’s economic environment but noted that this negative adjustment could serve a valid public policy objective by providing a margin for adverse investment contingencies.

The CIA noted that there is a potential for misinterpretation of rule 53.09(1) and recommended that the wording be altered slightly to clarify that there is not only one discount rate to be applied to one particular loss under 53.09(1) and to make it clear that the rate prescribed by 53.09(1)(a) is to be used in discounting all losses.

Lastly with respect to rule 53.09(1), the CIA suggested that the Committee consider prescribing a nominal discount rate that could be used in situations when a real discount rate would be inappropriate.

Rule 53.10 sets the prejudgment interest rate for non-pecuniary damages at 5% per year. The CIA acknowledges that this rate is reasonable from a public policy perspective as it motivates settlement and compensates successful plaintiffs for delays in resolution. However, the CIA suggests that a floating rate based on yields on GICs with an adjustment may be a consideration. They recognize however that this would largely increase the complexity.

Supreme Court comments on motions to strike

The Supreme Court recently commented on motions to strike on the basis there is no reasonable cause of action. In R. v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., 2011 SCC 42, Imperial Tobacco is a defendant in two cases in British Columbia: one where the government seeks to recover the cost of medical treatment provided to smokers, and the second a class action pertaining to class members who purchased “light” or “mild” cigarettes. Imperial Tobacco issued third party claims against the federal government, alleging negligent misrepresentation, negligent design and failure to warn. In addition, Imperial alleges Canada was a “manufacturer” or “supplier” of cigarettes.



The Supreme Court held that all of the third party claims failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action and struck them. The Court confirmed that the test remains whether the claim has no reasonable chance of success. The purpose of the test is described as follows:



[19] The power to strike out claims that have no reasonable prospect of success is a valuable housekeeping measure essential to effective and fair litigation. It unclutters the proceedings, weeding out the hopeless claims and ensuring that those that have some chance of success go on to trial.

[20] This promotes two goods — efficiency in the conduct of the litigation and correct results. Striking out claims that have no reasonable prospect of success promotes litigation efficiency, reducing time and cost. The litigants can focus on serious claims, without devoting days and sometimes weeks of evidence and argument to claims that are in any event hopeless. The same applies to judges and juries, whose attention is focused where it should be — on claims that have a reasonable chance of success. The efficiency gained by weeding out unmeritorious claims in turn contributes to better justice. The more the evidence and arguments are trained on the real issues, the more likely it is that the trial process will successfully come to grips with the parties’ respective positions on those issues and the merits of the case.

[21] Valuable as it is, the motion to strike is a tool that must be used with care. The law is not static and unchanging. Actions that yesterday were deemed hopeless may tomorrow succeed. Before Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] A.C. 562 (H.L.) introduced a general duty of care to one’s neighbour premised on foreseeability, few would have predicted that, absent a contractual relationship, a bottling company could be held liable for physical injury and emotional trauma resulting from a snail in a bottle of ginger beer. Before Hedley Byrne & Co. v. Heller & Partners Ltd., [1963] 2 All E.R. 575 (H.L.), a tort action for negligent misstatement would have been regarded as incapable of success. The history of our law reveals that often new developments in the law first surface on motions to strike or similar preliminary motions, like the one at issue in Donoghue v. Stevenson. Therefore, on a motion to strike, it is not determinative that the law has not yet recognized the particular claim. The court must rather ask whether, assuming the facts pleaded are true, there is a reasonable prospect that the claim will succeed. The approach must be generous and err on the side of permitting a novel but arguable claim to proceed to trial.



Imperial argued that the motion to strike should be dismissed on the basis that future evidence might reveal more evidence against the government. The Court rejected this argument; the focus is on the pleadings, not the evidence and a judge cannot consider what future evidence might or might not show.



In addition to a useful summary of the test on a motion to strike, the Court goes through the Anns duty of care analysis. The decision is a good synopsis of these important principles.

Summary judgment in jury cases

Is summary judgment available in jury cases?

Cooke v. Toivonen (2011), 105 O.R. (3d) 232 (S.C.J.)

This case involved a multi-vehicle automobile collision. The Cooke vehicle was hit from behind by Price, and in turn Cooke hit Toivonen. Toivonen hit the vehicle in front of him.

The plaintiffs consented to an order releasing Toivonen from the action; however, the remaining defendants objected, arguing that to do so would amount to bifurcating the trial. Rule 6.01 permits bifurcation only if all parties consent. In Kovacs v. Kovacs, the Court of Appeal held that jury cases are an exception to the court’s inherent power to split a trial.

The Court held that it has the authority to order summary judgment in jury cases. Summary judgment is not at odds with a litigant’s right to a jury trial. There was no air of reality to a claim that the Toivonen vehicle could be liable and the action and crossclaims against Toivonen were dismissed.

Disclosure of Surveillance

If surveillance is provided to an independent medical assessor, does it have to be produced to the plaintiff, even if the assessor does not rely on it in forming his or her opinion?

In Aherne v. Chang, [2011] O.J. No. 1880 (S.C.J.), the plaintiff sued for injuries alleged to have been caused as a result of medical treatment provided by the defendant. On the defendant's examination for discovery, his counsel confirmed that there had been no surveillance undertaken but refused to answer questions pertaining to disclosure of any future surveillance that might be undertaken after the discoveries. Counsel for the defendant took the position that privilege over documents released to a medical examiner, is waived only if the document is relied upon by the medical examiner, and not at the time that the document is released to the medical examiner. The plaintiff sought to obtain copies of any surveillance that was released by the defendant to a physician or healthcare practitioner retained for purposes of a defence medical assessment.

Master Short held that from the moment of his retainer to conduct a Rule 33 examination, a defence medical examiner owes his or her primary duty to the court. It is inappropriate and unseemly for the court to prevent any party before it from having contemporary access to the information provided to that expert.

Master Short summarized the following principles emerging from the rules and previous jurisprudence:

(a) if information is sent to an expert, then the same information should be sent to the opposing party to allow that party to test the expert’s opinion;
(b) an opposing party is entitled to the facts on which the expert’s opinion is based;
(c) so long as an expert read a document sent to him or her, then that document was considered, such that it is a “finding” that must be produced;
(d) the privilege claimed over a document sent to an expert is waived at the time that it was decided to rely on that expert’s opinion or in circumstances where privilege is waived over the report, even if the waiver was inadvertent;
(e) by sending a defence medical assessor portions of surveillance, privilege over the full surveillance video or all photographs is waived.

Master Short held that privilege is lost at the point the material is sent to an expert retained for the purpose of a Rule 33 examination. It was therefore held that the defendant is obliged to provide a copy of any surveillance of the plaintiff concurrently with its release to any defence medical examiner.

Thanks to Barb Legate for this comment on our post on McNeill v. Filthaut, regarding the current debate over the testimony of accident benefits assessors:

"A point that seems to be missed in some of these analyses is that notwithstanding the provisions of Rules 4 and 53, those rules are merely a codification of the law that stated with Amertek. Rules 4 and 53 are part of the Mohan criteria, and fall under the "any exclusionary rule" branch. So, although there are exclusionary rules for experts a party retains, that does not end the analysis. If a witness is to give opinion evidence, the witness has to be qualified as an expert. Part of the qualification exercise is to enquire into bias. Bias also enters into the relevance assessment. See CA decision in Abbey.

IMHO, those cases that strain to differentiate treating opinions from AB opinions from DAC opinions and retained expert opinions have missed the basic law: you want to call a witness to give an opinion, then follow Mohan. No fancy differentiations needed."

Statutory Third Party

Ahmed v. Maharaj, [2010] O.J. No. 4922 (S.C.J.)

Here's a decision that might be useful to counsel for a Statutory Third Party. There were two issues in this motion:

1. Whether the Statutory Third Party is entitled to pursue a crossclaim against one of the co-defendants; and
2. Whether the Statutory Third Party could be compelled to answer questions on examination for discovery about why it denied coverage.

Justice Stewart held as follows:

1. The Statutory Third Party is entitled to bring a crossclaim, since the Insurance Act does not expressly limit it to the right to file a Statement of Defence;
2. The Statutory Third Party is not required to answer questions about why coverage was denied. Generally issues of coverage and issues of liability are to be kept separate. A plaintiff who wishes to challenge a denial of coverage may do so following judgment pursuant to s. 258(1) of the Insurance Act but until that happens, issues of coverage are generally not relevant.

Filing Expert Reports as Exhibits at Trial - Part 2

In our last post, we discussed the Clark v. Zigrossi decision, where Justice Brown held that whether a party can file an expert’s report and call viva voce evidence from that expert is a matter of the court’s discretion.

In coming to this conclusion, Justice Brown undertook an analysis of the origins of the position that the report of an expert witness who testifies does not become an exhibit unless counsel agree or the court so orders. The approach was traced back to the 1974 Court of Appeal decision in Ferraro v. Lee (1974), 2 O.R. (2d) 417 (C.A.), in which the purpose of s. 52(2) of the Evidence Act was examined and it was found that the intention of the Legislature was to provide for the introduction into evidence of the medical report so that the party tendering it might be relieved from having to call the doctor to give evidence. It was then reasoned that a party cannot therefore proceed both to file the report and call the doctor. In drawing this conclusion, the Court of Appeal disagreed with the earlier case of Snyder v. Siutters, [1970] 3 O.R. 789 (H.C.J.), in which the trial judge granted leave to file the reports of doctors who were called to give viva voce evidence.

In Snyder v. Siutters, Wright J. held that it was in the interests of the administration of justice not only that the medical reports should be available in their entirety, but that if they are available, viva voce evidence of the practitioner should also be available. He went on to describe three great advantages of making both the reports and the experts’ testimony available to the jury, which Justice Brown found to possess a certain attractiveness. The advantages being that:

1) it enables a fixed and coherent opinion by the doctor to be put before the Court;
2) it enables the doctor, if he testifies to explain the technical language, and any other matters that arise by reason of evidence or other developments of the trial, and it gives the opposite party the right to cross-examine; and
3) it preserves for the jury room in an exact way the testimony of the doctor.

The Court of Appeal has subsequently interpreted Ferraro v. Lee and held that it is a matter of judicial discretion as to whether a party may both call an expert and file his report.

Thanks to our articling student, Alexandra Lacko, for contributing this post.