Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The court dismissed the defendants’ application for a neurologist IME and refused late service of any resulting report, finding no substantive gap in the existing medical opinion.
The court admitted the defendants’ expert report subject to redactions, finding no realistic concern of bias but removing credibility, irrelevant history, and prejudicial passages.
Damages were awarded for chronic low back pain after a rear-end collision, including non-pecuniary loss, past and future earning capacity, future care and special damages.
The court excluded Dr. Brooks’s expert report and testimony, finding the evidence failed the Mohan tests of relevance and necessity and would not assist the trier of fact.
The court dismissed a defence request for short leave to seek a psychiatric IME close to trial, finding no reasonable surprise about the plaintiff’s psychiatric claims.
In a voir dire at the start of a motor vehicle damages jury trial, the court excluded a chiropractic expert report for lack of reliability and late service.
Appeal dismissed in a personal injury action involving four motor vehicle accidents. The court upheld the trial judge’s finding that no MTBI was proved.
The court held that a supplementary expert report remained subject to Rule 11-6(1) and excluded Dr. Dommisse’s opinion because it did not list the documents relied on.
The court dismissed the defendants’ application for a further psychiatric IME, finding no new issue and no basis to bolster an existing opinion.
The court applied the 1972 Civil Procedure Rules and found that Dr. Shea's report was a timely-anticipated rebuttal to defence experts, defendants had prior notice and suffered no prejudice, and therefore leave to admit Dr. Shea's report was granted. Dr. Cook's report was admissible only to the limited extent that it directly responded to Dr. Soder's opinion (specified paragraph); the remainder of Cook's report, offering new opinions on the plaintiff's competency and future care, was excluded because it was a new substantive opinion filed too late, would prejudice defendants by denying them t…
Source excerpt
Explore more
