skip to main content
Back to Top

BLAWG Post

Sep 10, 2016

Jennifer Bruce succeeds on two of three issues on document production motion in mva action

Authors Michael S. Teitelbaum and Sean P. Tindale

Congratulations to our very own Jennifer Bruce in being successful on two of the three document production requests on a motion before Ontario Superior Court Justice George in Phul v. Georgian Bay Transport Inc., a motor vehicle tort action in which accident benefits file information was being sought.

Thanks to my partner, Sean Tindale, for his note about the decision, as follows:

Congratulations to Jennifer Bruce on her success in arguing 2 of 3 issues on a production/refusals motion in London. The motions judge agreed with Jennifer that AB surveillance shown to an AB medical assessor was relevant and producible in the tort action. The judge also found that an AB assessor's report was relevant and producible in circumstances where the plaintiff refused to consent to the release of a report to the AB insurer, and then did not ascertain whether a report was actually prepared by the assessor. The judge indicated that the onus is on the plaintiff to make inquiries about the report and satisfy the defendant, and ultimately the court, that the plaintiff has made best efforts to ascertain the existence of the report and obtain possession.

For more info, a copy of the endorsement is attached.

Well done and thank you Jennifer!

A non-cuttable and non-pasteable version of the decision is attached.

The third request which His Honour declined to order was that the plaintiff provide a list of documents arising from the accident benefits claim which have not been produced. This was asked for because a list of privileged documents, (provided after the plaintiff's affidavit of documents did not list anything in Schedule B), did not include the surveillance video. He was satisfied that a complete list of documents has been provided. His Honour also declined to order further particulars of the documents for which privilege has been claimed as this could potentially destroy the litigation privilege.

And, you will see that His Honour discusses the law regarding the production of relevant documents at paras. 35-37.

Related Team

Recent BLAWGS

Feb
12
2019

Ont. C.A. upholds finding that admission during argument cannot be withdrawn, while expressing no opinion on whether an owner can be vicariously liable under the Highway Traffic Act for intentional torts

Further to the previous Blawg post, pasted below, in Reasons for Decision in Liu v. The Personal Insurance  Company, released on February 12th, 2019, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge’s refusal to allow the defendant/a......

Feb
09
2019

In mva action evidentiary ruling, Ont. Super. Ct. holds that evidence of plaintiff's litigation loans cannot be led as these expenses are too remote, and not reasonably foreseeable to the defendants, so cannot be claimed as damages

In Mann v. Jefferson, a mva action being tried by a jury, Ontario Superior Court Justice Trimble in an evidentiary ruling, held that the plaintiff could not be questioned during examination in chief about two litigation loans he took out since the......

Feb
09
2019

Hughes Amys congratulates Bill Chalmers on his appointment to the Ontario Superior Court!

With great pride in his accomplishments, and much thanks for all of his efforts, Hughes Amys, (and the Blawgmeister, personally), bid Bill Chalmers a fond farewell and express our heartiest congratulations as he moves into his new role as a Justic......

The BLAWG on this website and the material published on it, including the links to other websites, are made available by the lawyer and law firm publisher for educational purposes only as well as to give the BLAWG's readers general information and a general understanding of the law, and not to provide specific legal advice. This BLAWG is for general informational purposes only, and use of this BLAWG does not create a Lawyer-Client Relationship. Hughes Amys LLP is a law firm and most of the information on the BLAWG relates to legal topics and cases. Hughes Amys LLP does not offer or dispense legal advice through this BLAWG or by e-mails directed to or from this site. By using the BLAWG, the reader agrees that the information on this BLAWG does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no lawyer-client or other relationship is created between the reader and Hughes Amys LLP or its lawyers. The BLAWG is not a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified lawyer. The information on the BLAWG may be changed without notice and is not guaranteed to be complete, correct or up-to-date. While the BLAWG is revised on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. Any comments, views or opinions expressed at or through the BLAWG are intended to provide general commentary on the law and legal issues, and are not intended for or should be understood as being posted for any other purpose. The BLAWG should not be used as a substitute for securing appropriate legal advice from a licensed professional lawyer in respect of particular facts and circumstances. Please use your own good judgment before choosing to act on any information included in the BLAWG, doing so entirely at your own risk.
  • Canadian Lawyer - Top 10 Boutique 2017-18
  • The ARC Group
  • Best Lawyers 2017
  • Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory 2016

© 201​6-17 All rights reserved | Legal Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Accessibility