April 01, 2022
At our weekly Friday meeting, Michael Kryworuk discussed the Superior Court’s decision in Beazley v. Johnston et al., 2022 ONSC 1739. History of the Litigation This interim ruling in a series of summary judgment motions considered whether the self-represented plaintiff, Mr. Cary Beazley, met the threshold requirement for qualification as an expert witness, such that […]
December 14, 2021
In Meade v. Hussein, 2021 ONSC 7850, the plaintiff attempted to rely on a brain SPECT scan to demonstrate that she sustained a traumatic brain injury in a motor vehicle accident. The defendant’s expert testified that the use of a brain SPECT to diagnose a traumatic brain injury is not supported by the academic community […]
November 25, 2021
By Suganiya Sivabalan In its recent decision in St. Marthe v. O’Connor, 2021 ONCA 790, the Ontario Court of Appeal provided guidance on the boundaries of appropriate expert evidence at trial, particularly evidence from participant experts. Background The plaintiff in this action was injured in a motor vehicle accident in November of 2011, in which […]
September 01, 2021
By Meryl Rodrigues The recent Superior Court motion decision in Mitsis v. Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Community of London[i] speaks to the importance of defence counsel properly considering strategy when arranging a medical examination of a plaintiff – both with respect to timing of such an examination and to the choice of expert. In Mitsis, […]
May 04, 2021
The Court of Appeal recently overturned a dismissal of a medical malpractice action due to improper expert evidence. In Parliament v. Conley, 2021 ONCA 261, a baby was diagnosed with hydrocephalus (an accumulation of fluid within the brain) when he was around four month old. He is now 21 years old and has cognitive and physical […]
March 09, 2021
By Brian Sunohara A recent court decision shows the importance of complying with timelines to serve expert reports. Justice Daley said that counsel are “sorely mistaken” if they think a breach of the Rules of Civil Procedure has no consequences. The decision involves a motion to adjourn a trial. Andrew Yolles of Rogers Partners LLP was […]
