Experts – Rogers Partners LLP https://www.rogerspartners.com Thu, 02 May 2024 01:01:13 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.4.19 Experts and Settlement Proposals Don’t Mix https://www.rogerspartners.com/litigation-experts-and-settlement-proposals-dont-mix/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=litigation-experts-and-settlement-proposals-dont-mix https://www.rogerspartners.com/litigation-experts-and-settlement-proposals-dont-mix/#respond Wed, 01 May 2024 20:49:24 +0000 https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=6956 By Cameron Allan A recent decision from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice serves as a reminder for counsel to carefully consider the types of documents being provided to their expert witnesses for the preparation of expert reports. In Simmermon v. Djoudad et. al., 2024 ONSC 2388, a motion judge struck an expert report from […]

The post Experts and Settlement Proposals Don’t Mix appeared first on Rogers Partners LLP.

]]> https://www.rogerspartners.com/litigation-experts-and-settlement-proposals-dont-mix/feed/ 0 Expert Opinions: Beware a Biased Expert https://www.rogerspartners.com/expert-opinions-beware-a-biased-expert/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=expert-opinions-beware-a-biased-expert https://www.rogerspartners.com/expert-opinions-beware-a-biased-expert/#respond Wed, 17 Jan 2024 20:03:31 +0000 https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=6874 By Celina Stoan In Denman v. Radovanovic, 2022 ONSC 4401, following a July 18, 2022, mid-trial voir dire, Justice Ferguson ordered the defence’s expert Dr. Redekop excluded from testifying on the grounds of bias. The 35th paragraph of Her Honour’s decision reads “This is the first time I have done this with an expert since […]

The post Expert Opinions: Beware a Biased Expert appeared first on Rogers Partners LLP.

]]> https://www.rogerspartners.com/expert-opinions-beware-a-biased-expert/feed/ 0 Fridays with Rogers Partners https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-104/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=fridays-with-rogers-partners-104 https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-104/#respond Fri, 03 Mar 2023 19:17:00 +0000 https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=6423 At our weekly Friday meeting, Katrina Taibi discussed the recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court in Ozdemir v. Economical Mutual Insurance Group, 2023 ONSC 685. Overview: A mid-trial hearing on the admissibility of the plaintiff’s medical report, when the doctor would not be presented for cross-examination. Facts: The plaintiff, Mr. Ozdemir, was allegedly injured […]

The post Fridays with Rogers Partners appeared first on Rogers Partners LLP.

]]> https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-104/feed/ 0 Motion for Defence Medical Exam Brought Too Close to Trial https://www.rogerspartners.com/motion-for-defence-medical-exam-brought-too-close-to-trial/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=motion-for-defence-medical-exam-brought-too-close-to-trial https://www.rogerspartners.com/motion-for-defence-medical-exam-brought-too-close-to-trial/#respond Thu, 15 Sep 2022 06:00:00 +0000 https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=6188 In Lafontaine v. McDaniel, 2022 ONSC 5153, the court dismissed the defendant’s motion to compel the plaintiff to attend a neuropsychology expert assessment and to extend the deadline to serve the expert’s report. The motion was heard on August 5, 2022. The proposed expert examination was scheduled for August 9, 2022. The trial was scheduled […]

The post Motion for Defence Medical Exam Brought Too Close to Trial appeared first on Rogers Partners LLP.

]]> https://www.rogerspartners.com/motion-for-defence-medical-exam-brought-too-close-to-trial/feed/ 0 Fridays with Rogers Partners https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-81/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=fridays-with-rogers-partners-81 https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-81/#respond Fri, 01 Apr 2022 21:37:00 +0000 https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=5805 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 […]

The post Fridays with Rogers Partners appeared first on Rogers Partners LLP.

]]> https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-81/feed/ 0 Brain SPECT Ruled Inadmissible at Trial https://www.rogerspartners.com/brain-spect-ruled-inadmissible-at-trial/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=brain-spect-ruled-inadmissible-at-trial https://www.rogerspartners.com/brain-spect-ruled-inadmissible-at-trial/#respond Tue, 14 Dec 2021 03:00:00 +0000 https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=5563 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 […]

The post Brain SPECT Ruled Inadmissible at Trial appeared first on Rogers Partners LLP.

]]> https://www.rogerspartners.com/brain-spect-ruled-inadmissible-at-trial/feed/ 0 A Cautionary Tale: The Consequences of Eliciting Previously Undisclosed Opinions from Participant Experts https://www.rogerspartners.com/a-cautionary-tale-the-consequences-of-eliciting-previously-undisclosed-opinions-from-participant-experts/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=a-cautionary-tale-the-consequences-of-eliciting-previously-undisclosed-opinions-from-participant-experts https://www.rogerspartners.com/a-cautionary-tale-the-consequences-of-eliciting-previously-undisclosed-opinions-from-participant-experts/#respond Thu, 25 Nov 2021 00:47:59 +0000 https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=5508 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 […]

The post A Cautionary Tale: The Consequences of Eliciting Previously Undisclosed Opinions from Participant Experts appeared first on Rogers Partners LLP.

]]> https://www.rogerspartners.com/a-cautionary-tale-the-consequences-of-eliciting-previously-undisclosed-opinions-from-participant-experts/feed/ 0 A Caution on Choice and Timing of Defence Medical Experts https://www.rogerspartners.com/a-caution-on-choice-and-timing-of-defence-medical-experts/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=a-caution-on-choice-and-timing-of-defence-medical-experts https://www.rogerspartners.com/a-caution-on-choice-and-timing-of-defence-medical-experts/#respond Wed, 01 Sep 2021 10:28:52 +0000 https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=5318 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, […]

The post A Caution on Choice and Timing of Defence Medical Experts appeared first on Rogers Partners LLP.

]]> https://www.rogerspartners.com/a-caution-on-choice-and-timing-of-defence-medical-experts/feed/ 0 Appeal Allowed in Medical Malpractice Case Due to Improper Expert Evidence https://www.rogerspartners.com/appeal-allowed-in-medical-malpractice-case-due-to-improper-expert-evidence/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=appeal-allowed-in-medical-malpractice-case-due-to-improper-expert-evidence https://www.rogerspartners.com/appeal-allowed-in-medical-malpractice-case-due-to-improper-expert-evidence/#respond Tue, 04 May 2021 03:00:00 +0000 https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=4941 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 […]

The post Appeal Allowed in Medical Malpractice Case Due to Improper Expert Evidence appeared first on Rogers Partners LLP.

]]> https://www.rogerspartners.com/appeal-allowed-in-medical-malpractice-case-due-to-improper-expert-evidence/feed/ 0 Late Service of Expert Report Causes Adjournment of Trial https://www.rogerspartners.com/late-service-of-expert-report-causes-adjournment-of-trial/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=late-service-of-expert-report-causes-adjournment-of-trial https://www.rogerspartners.com/late-service-of-expert-report-causes-adjournment-of-trial/#respond Tue, 09 Mar 2021 13:01:02 +0000 https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=4731 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 […]

The post Late Service of Expert Report Causes Adjournment of Trial appeared first on Rogers Partners LLP.

]]> https://www.rogerspartners.com/late-service-of-expert-report-causes-adjournment-of-trial/feed/ 0