April 28, 2020
In Sit v. Trillium Health Centre, 2020 ONSC 2458, Justice Trimble addressed several issues related to expert evidence at trials. Expert Report as an Aide Memoire Justice Trimble confirmed that, unless a medical report is tendered as a medical expert’s evidence-in-chief in place of oral testimony, the report has no evidentiary value. The only admissible evidence […]
April 27, 2020
By Brian Sunohara In Girao v. Cunningham, 2020 ONCA 260, the Ontario Court of Appeal addressed several important issues regarding trials, particularly in personal injury actions. These issues include the use of joint document books; introducing evidence of participant experts and non-party experts; the distinction between section 35 and section 52 of the Evidence Act; […]
February 03, 2020
Brian Sunohara spoke at the The Advocates’ Society’s Tricks of the Trade conference. It was a great event with hundreds of attendees. Brian presented on surveillance and social media evidence at trial. Brian was co-counsel in the Ontario Court of Appeal’s latest decision on this topic, Nemchin v. Green. Based on this decision, surveillance will likely be […]
January 31, 2020
At our muffin meeting, we discussed a decision which provides a very helpful summary of several important principles of evidence. In particular, in Schindler Elevator Corporation v. Walsh Construction Company of Canada, 2020 ONSC 433, the court stated: The truth-seeking function of the trial creates a starting premise that all relevant evidence is admissible. To […]
January 28, 2020
By Brian Sunohara The collateral fact rule is often misunderstood. As indicated by the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. A.C., 2018 ONCA 333, the collateral fact rule has “historically suffered from confusion in its application”. In R. v. A.C., the Court of Appeal noted that the collateral fact rule operates to prevent a […]
January 14, 2020
Plaintiffs sometimes attempt to rely on similar fact evidence to prove liability. Similar fact evidence is evidence of past misconduct of a defendant for the purpose of inferring that the defendant is liable for the incident in question. Similar fact evidence was addressed in the recent decision of SecurityInChina International Corp. v. Bank of Montreal, […]
