Banfield v. RKO Steel Ltd.

Banfield v. RKO Steel Ltd.

The plaintiff's applications were dismissed: the court refused to permit the late addition of Lynne Smith and Mr. Glencross because the plaintiff failed to satisfy the criteria under Rule 4.18 and cited authorities (no prior identification, inadequate explanation, potential prejudice); the court declined to admit any documentary or viva voce evidence of treating physician Dr. Carey because no narrative or expert report was filed as required by Rule 55.14(5), admission would circumvent the expert rules and be highly prejudicial in a jury trial.

Citation
2017 NSSC 315
Parties
Plaintiff/applicant: Thomas Banfield; Defendant/respondent: RKO Steel Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil (personal Injury) / Pre Trial (motions on Eve of 12 Day Jury Trial)
Outcome
Plaintiff's motion to add two witnesses dismissed; plaintiff's request to admit Dr. Carey and related medical records denied; costs awarded to respondent.
Legal Topics
Witness Lists, Treating Physician Narratives, Admissibility of Expert Opinion, Rule 55 Compliance, Costs
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Evidence Personal Injury Expert Evidence Witness Lists Treating Physician Narratives Admissibility of Expert Opinion Rule 55 Compliance +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Banfield

Plaintiff/applicant

RKO Steel Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil (personal Injury) / Pre Trial (motions on Eve of 12 Day Jury Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to permit late addition of two witnesses to plaintiff's witness list under Rule 4.18
  2. 2 Whether treating physician Dr. Aiden Carey and related medical records are admissible absent a narrative or expert report under Rule 55.14(5)
  3. 3 Whether admission of such evidence would be prejudicial to the respondent

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's applications were dismissed: the court refused to permit the late addition of Lynne Smith and Mr. Glencross because the plaintiff failed to satisfy the criteria under Rule 4.18 and cited authorities (no prior identification, inadequate explanation, potential prejudice); the court declined to admit any documentary or viva voce evidence of treating physician Dr. Carey because no narrative or expert report was filed as required by Rule 55.14(5), admission would circumvent the expert rules and be highly prejudicial in a jury trial.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's motion to add two witnesses dismissed; plaintiff's request to admit Dr. Carey and related medical records denied; costs awarded to respondent.

Orders

  • Dismissed request to add Lynne Smith and Mr. Glencross to the plaintiff's witness list
  • Declined to admit any documentary or viva voce evidence of Dr. Aiden Carey or his medical records