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
Court allowed only limited s. 83 deductions for Part 7 benefits, reducing some items for certification uncertainty and fee limits, and refusing deductions for home care, assisted living, and aids.
The action is dismissed because the plaintiff inexcusably failed to prosecute the claim over many years, failed to appear and adduce evidence at the trial despite clear warnings and opportunities, and the court properly exercised its powers under the Civil Procedure Rules and its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and to protect the interests of the defendant and the administration of justice.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal set aside a 20% contingency reduction to Part 7 deductions from a future care award, finding it unsupported by evidence of non-payment risk.
The motion judge reasonably concluded that the appellant failed to provide the 10‑day statutory notice and had no reasonable excuse because he possessed sufficient facts and should have investigated and notified the City earlier (at latest within 10 days of receiving the Wilkinson expert report); the motion judge's factual and discretionary findings were open on the record and entitled to deference, so the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The court determined which Part 7 benefits and related payments must be deducted from a personal injury damages award, while rejecting deduction of uncertain future disability benefits and yoga costs.
The court refused a further trial adjournment in a family violence-related civil action, finding the defendant had delayed retaining counsel and that delay would prejudice the plaintiff.
Post-trial application on Part 7 deductions in a motor vehicle injury case. The court held the special damages deduction moot, but reduced future care by $4,000.
Appeal dismissed from the refusal of further Part 7 accident benefits. The Court of Appeal held the medical evidence did not support ongoing total disability tied to the accident.
The Court of Appeal held that a disputed driver-identity issue under s. 24(6) of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act could not be resolved by summary trial and had to be tried conventionally.
The trial judge erred in redacting expert reports and in prohibiting cross-examination on the hearsay opinions of non-testifying experts; hearsay in expert reports is admissible for the limited purpose of evaluating the expert's opinion (affecting its weight, not proving the hearsay facts) and defence counsel must be permitted to fully cross-examine on the expert's use of such hearsay; the error was prejudicial and warrants a new trial.
Source excerpt
Explore more
