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 found the defendant liable for sexual battery and awarded the plaintiff $266,750 plus $1,609.52 under the Health Care Costs Recovery Act.
The court granted an adjournment of a 9-day trial in a disability benefits case, finding defendants could not fairly prepare because key records and expert steps were outstanding.
The Province sought declarations about waiver of litigation privilege and the implied undertaking for expert reports and other litigation materials, but the court adjourned the application generally.
The court ordered the plaintiff to attend a physical and cognitive functional capacity evaluation and awarded costs to the defendant in any event of the cause.
The court dismissed a pre-trial application to have proposed disbursements treated as excluded disbursements under the Regulation, finding no sufficient proof of undue hardship.
In a proposed class action, the court declined to exclude the defendant’s expert reports before certification, leaving admissibility and relevance to be argued at the hearing.
The court partially granted a pre-trial application to exclude expert disbursements from the vehicle-injury cap, allowing psychiatry and related application costs, but not an occupational therapy FCE.
The court denied a plaintiff’s request to exclude a psychiatric assessment from the disbursements cap, but allowed any rebuttal physiatry report to be excluded.
Motion allowed in part: expert reports provided to the trial judge as aides memoire but not marked as exhibits may be included in the appeal materials only if their non‑evidentiary status and the context in which they were provided are clearly and expressly stated; accordingly Simcoe must amend the descriptions in the appeal book and its factum to include explanatory statements within 10 days.
Source excerpt
The court dismissed an application for an updated s. 211 Family Law Act assessment, finding it was not yet clear the report was required to assist with the children’s needs.
Explore more
