Thomson Rogers, on behalf of the Plaintiff, brought a motion to compel a Defendant’s compliance with a previous Court Order, since after months of inquiries from Thomson Rogers, the Defendant had refused to provide any meaningful update on his efforts to comply. That update and (partial) compliance with the Order was only provided after Thomson Rogers filed its motion. The Judge concluded that the Plaintiff had acted reasonably in bringing the motion and the Defendant, in refusing to co-operate prior to the motion, had not. The Defendant’s pugilistic approach was condemned by the Court by means of an Order for costs to the Plaintiff payable on a substantial indemnity basis.

Read the endorsement here.

In this case, Thomson Rogers represented the Plaintiff/Appellant, who was suing his insurer and its two adjuster employees regarding the insurer’s denial of the Plaintiff’s long-term disability benefits. On a motion brought before a Judge, the insurance adjusters successfully had the Statement of Claim against them struck on the basis that there was no cause of action against them, personally, since they had been carrying out their regular duties of employment. The Plaintiff appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal and the appeal was granted; specifically, the motion Judge’s Order was varied to allow the Plaintiff leave to amend the Statement of Claim in order to plead the allegations against the adjusters with greater particularity.

Read the decision from The Court of Appeal of Ontario here.

Some Defendants were bringing a motion to require the Plaintiffs (who resided outside of Ontario) to post security for costs (i.e. to pay money into court pending the outcome of the case in the event that the Plaintiffs were unsuccessful and may be responsible for paying all or part of the Defendants’ legal bill). Prior to that motion for security for costs, Thomson Rogers, on behalf of the Plaintiffs, brought a motion seeking to compel the Defendants to be examined for discovery (i.e. to answer questions under oath) before the hearing of the security for costs motion. Ms. Gilbert argued the motion on behalf of the Plaintiffs and was successful: the Defendants were ordered to be examined for discovery before the return date of the security for costs motion. The significance of this outcome is that the Plaintiffs should ultimately be in a better position to respond to the Defendants’ security for costs motion with the further information that they should be able to obtain at the Defendants’ discoveries.

Pervan et al. v. Jackson et al. Proceedings

Following the settlement of his personal injury case and a Consent Judgment, the Plaintiff was forced to bring an action pursuant to section 258(1) of the Insurance Act to compel one of two insurers, Gore Mutual Insurance Company or Allstate Insurance Company of Canada, to pay the Judgment from the proceeds of its insurance policy.

By way of background, the Plaintiff sustained serious injuries when the vehicle in which he was a passenger crashed. The driver and owner of the vehicle (“the Defendants”) were insured by Gore. Gore took the position that the Defendants had failed to co-operate in their Defence and had, therefore, breached a term of their policy. If true, Gore would have been permitted to reduce its coverage from the $2 million policy limits to the statutory minimum in Ontario of $200,000 (which amount would not have been enough to satisfy the Plaintiff’s claims for damages). Since the Plaintiff had his own policy with Allstate with limits of $1 million, he added Allstate as a Defendant for underinsurance coverage. The parties ultimately settled the case in terms of the damages but the two insurers continued to fight over which insurer had to pay the damages.

A separate action was brought to have a Judge decide whether Gore’s off-coverage position was meritorious. The Judge found that the owner of the vehicle had not breached her policy with Gore, such that Gore had to respond to the Plaintiff’s claims up to its full policy limits of $2 million and, therefore, pay the monies owed under the Judgment.

Ruddell v. Gore, 2018 ONSC 3932 (2018-06-22) – Endorsement

Wawanesa sought to send the Plaintiff to four Defence medical examination; all or which requests were made after pre-trial. Notwithstanding Wawanesa’s breach of the Rules, the Plaintiff was agreeable to attending one but not four Defence medicals. Wawanesa insisted upon the Plaintiff attending all four and proceeded with a motion. The motion was dismissed but for the one assessment, the Plaintiff had always been willing to attend. Motion for leave to appeal was dismissed. Wawanesa was chastised by both the Superior Court and the Divisional Court for failing to comply with the Rules regarding the time for serving expert reports.

Babcock v. Destefano, 2017 ONSC 276 (2017-01-13) – Reasons for Decision (Motion to Leave to Appeal)

Babcock v. Destefano, 2016 ONSC 5698 (2016-09-14) – Costs Decision

Babcock v. Destefano, 2016 ONSC 5352 (2016-08-24) – Citation

This was an action against Dr. John Chong in which it was alleged that his medical management of his patient, Janet Thornhill, was negligent.

2016 ONSC 6353 (CanLII) – Judgment

UPDATE (April 2, 2019):  The College of Physicians and Surgeons (CPSO) reviewed the care that Dr. Chong provided to Janet Thornhill over the course of over 10 years. On April 2, 2019, the CPSO released its written Decision, which considered the Trial Decision as well as the expert reports that were used at trial. In its April 2, 2019 Decision, the CPSO found that Dr. Chong breached the standard of care in his treatment of Janet’s cancer. The CPSO cautioned Dr. Chong about his charting practices, the poor quality of his assessments and his misplaced psychotherapeutic approach to Janet’s painful tumour. The College also noted that contrary to his claim of being an Occupational Medicine Specialist, Dr. Chong was not entitled to hold himself out as a specialist in Occupational Medicine, having not received that designation from the Royal College. As indicated in the Decision, Dr. Chong entered into an Agreement with the CPSO that will significantly restrict his practice and his stated qualifications. This CPSO Decision is yet another victory for Janet and a further public affirmation of the courage she has displayed. Thanks to Janet, Dr. Chong’s current and future patients will hopefully be better informed and will receive better care from this physician.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons (CPSO) Decision

This action involved a slip and fall that took place on November 1, 2007. The plaintiff was drinking heavily at several different bars and restaurants located on Danforth Avenue in the City of Toronto. The last of the establishments visited by Mr. Willis that night was operated by the defendant Pentagram Inc. It was at Pentagram that Wills fell while descending a staircase on his way to use the washroom.

As a result of the fall, Mr. Wills suffered very serious injuries. Leaving him a quadriplegic living in an assisted living facility operated by the March of Dimes.

View Reasons for Decision (Ontario Superior Court of Justice)

This Application was about insurance coverage issues.  Ms. Baughan was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident that took place in the United States Virgin Islands. The sole question that needed to be decided on the Application was whether the term “United States of America” ought to be interpreted to include the United States Virgin Islands for purposes of accident benefits and underinsurance coverage.

View Reasons for Decision (Ontario Superior Court of Justice)

View Endorsement (Ontario Superior Court of Justice)

View Reasons for Decision (Ontario Superior Court of Justice)

View Reasons for Decision (Ontario Superior Court of Justice)

View Endorsement (Ontario Superior Court of Justice)