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.
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.