<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Trials &#8211; Rogers Partners LLP</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/tag/trials/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 May 2024 05:38:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=5.4.20</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Fridays with Rogers Partners</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-114/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=fridays-with-rogers-partners-114</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-114/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Jul 2023 22:52:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Friday Forum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trials]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=6556</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>At our weekly meeting, Katrina Taibi discussed a recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Overview: The Court considered whether an action for loss of competitive advantage (“LOCA”) should be dismissed by way of a non-suit motion or by declining to put the question to the jury. Background Facts: The plaintiff was riding [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-114/">Fridays with Rogers Partners</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-114/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trial by Stopwatch: A Warning from the Court of Appeal</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/trial-by-stopwatch-a-warning-from-the-court-of-appeal/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=trial-by-stopwatch-a-warning-from-the-court-of-appeal</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/trial-by-stopwatch-a-warning-from-the-court-of-appeal/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 May 2023 21:20:49 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trials]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=6497</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Michael Kryworuk In Interhealth Canada Limited v. O’Keefe, 2023 ONCA 368, the Ontario Court of Appeal considered an appeal by the plaintiff, Interhealth Canada Limited (“Interhealth”), of a decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. While the case was appealed on both substantive and procedural grounds, this blog post will focus primarily on [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/trial-by-stopwatch-a-warning-from-the-court-of-appeal/">Trial by Stopwatch: A Warning from the Court of Appeal</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/trial-by-stopwatch-a-warning-from-the-court-of-appeal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Brian Sunohara and Erin Crochetière Win Trial</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/brian-sunohara-and-erin-crochetiere-win-trial/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=brian-sunohara-and-erin-crochetiere-win-trial</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/brian-sunohara-and-erin-crochetiere-win-trial/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2022 12:35:50 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Firm News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trials]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=6288</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Congratulations to Brian Sunohara and Erin Crochetière for their success at a recent trial! The decision was released yesterday. The case of Leendertse v. His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario, 2022 ONSC 6395, involves an accident where the plaintiff was riding a bicycle and was struck by a police SUV. The plaintiff sued [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/brian-sunohara-and-erin-crochetiere-win-trial/">Brian Sunohara and Erin Crochetière Win Trial</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/brian-sunohara-and-erin-crochetiere-win-trial/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Cross-Examination on Criminal Charges Not Permitted</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/cross-examination-on-criminal-charges-not-permitted/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=cross-examination-on-criminal-charges-not-permitted</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/cross-examination-on-criminal-charges-not-permitted/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Oct 2022 06:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trials]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=6236</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>In Rana et al v. Ramzan et al, 2022 ONSC 5669, a witness called by the defendants denied in examination-in-chief ever being convicted of a criminal offence. In cross-examination, plaintiffs&#8217; counsel sought to cross-examine the witness on information contained in a document which indicated that the witness had been charged with fraud. Justice Daley stated: [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/cross-examination-on-criminal-charges-not-permitted/">Cross-Examination on Criminal Charges Not Permitted</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/cross-examination-on-criminal-charges-not-permitted/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Late Service of Expert Reports Now Being More Closely Scrutinized</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/late-service-of-expert-reports-now-being-more-closely-scrutinized/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=late-service-of-expert-reports-now-being-more-closely-scrutinized</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/late-service-of-expert-reports-now-being-more-closely-scrutinized/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Apr 2022 16:30:15 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trials]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=5872</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>In Agaj v. Munroe, 2022 ONSC 2508, the plaintiff proceeded to trial in a motor vehicle accident case without having expert reports addressing the plaintiff’s claim for income loss and medical and housekeeping needs. After the jury was selected, the plaintiff’s lawyer advised the court that he had spoken to unnamed experts who indicated that [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/late-service-of-expert-reports-now-being-more-closely-scrutinized/">Late Service of Expert Reports Now Being More Closely Scrutinized</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/late-service-of-expert-reports-now-being-more-closely-scrutinized/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Brain SPECT Ruled Inadmissible at Trial</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/brain-spect-ruled-inadmissible-at-trial/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=brain-spect-ruled-inadmissible-at-trial</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/brain-spect-ruled-inadmissible-at-trial/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Dec 2021 03:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trials]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Experts]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=5563</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>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 [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/brain-spect-ruled-inadmissible-at-trial/">Brain SPECT Ruled Inadmissible at Trial</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/brain-spect-ruled-inadmissible-at-trial/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Virtual Trial at Rogers Partners</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/virtual-trial-at-rogers-partners/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=virtual-trial-at-rogers-partners</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/virtual-trial-at-rogers-partners/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Dec 2021 01:10:33 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Firm News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trials]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=5567</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Two of our lawyers, Brian Sunohara and Erin Crochetière, participated in a virtual trial from our boardroom last week. The case involves alleged motor vehicle negligence and breach of Charter rights. The trial is anticipated to continue in the early new year. Although conducting a trial by videoconference is not the same as being in [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/virtual-trial-at-rogers-partners/">Virtual Trial at Rogers Partners</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/virtual-trial-at-rogers-partners/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Damages in Chronic Pain Trial</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/damages-in-chronic-pain-trial/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=damages-in-chronic-pain-trial</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/damages-in-chronic-pain-trial/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 2021 16:09:49 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trials]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Damages]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=5521</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>In the recent trial decision of Legree v. Origlieri, 2021 ONSC 7650, the plaintiff was rear-ended in stop and go traffic. The police and ambulance were called to the scene. The plaintiff did not have a significant pre-accident medical history. As a result of the accident, Justice Fowler Byrne found that the plaintiff sustained the following [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/damages-in-chronic-pain-trial/">Damages in Chronic Pain Trial</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/damages-in-chronic-pain-trial/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court Confirms Jury Not To Be Advised of Statutory Deductible</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/court-confirms-jury-not-to-be-advised-of-statutory-deductible/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=court-confirms-jury-not-to-be-advised-of-statutory-deductible</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/court-confirms-jury-not-to-be-advised-of-statutory-deductible/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2021 21:05:20 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trials]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Automobile Claims]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=5307</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>One of the issues in Rumney v. Nelson, 2021 ONSC 5632, was whether the jury should be advised of the statutory deductible in a motor vehicle accident trial. Justice Fowler Byrne confirmed that the jury should not be so advised. Section 267.5(7) of the Insurance Act indicates that damages for non-pecuniary loss shall first be [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/court-confirms-jury-not-to-be-advised-of-statutory-deductible/">Court Confirms Jury Not To Be Advised of Statutory Deductible</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/court-confirms-jury-not-to-be-advised-of-statutory-deductible/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Rule in Browne and Dunn</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/the-rule-in-browne-and-dunn/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-rule-in-browne-and-dunn</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/the-rule-in-browne-and-dunn/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Aug 2021 03:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Publications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trials]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=5284</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Brian Sunohara Every litigator needs to be familiar with the rule in Browne and Dunn. In Goruk v. Greater Barrie Chamber of Commerce, 2021 ONSC 4046, the court went over the principles of this rule. Overview of the Rule The rule in Browne and Dunn requires a cross-examining lawyer to confront a witness with [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/the-rule-in-browne-and-dunn/">The Rule in Browne and Dunn</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/the-rule-in-browne-and-dunn/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
