September 26, 2022
In Kromah, et al. v. Lepore, et al., 2022 ONSC 4830, the plaintiffs sought to conditionally strike a jury notice in a civil action commenced in London, Ontario. The trial was scheduled to commence in September 2022. Justice Nicholson recognized the backlog of criminal and family matters in all regions, which take precedence over civil […]
September 23, 2022
At our weekly firm meeting, we discussed the case of Bouzanis v. Greenwood et al, 2022 ONSC 5262. The decision involves a motion by the defendants to enforce a settlement. The plaintiff’s lawyer e-mailed the defendants’ lawyer indicating that the plaintiff was offering to settle the litigation on the basis of a dismissal without costs. […]
September 21, 2022
By: Michael C. Brown In a previous RP Blog post, we discussed the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Mugizi v. Ngo, 2022 ONCA 595, but we wish to expand on that post given the importance of the message it carries from the Court. Litigating in a post-COVID-19 era has proven to be a difficult transition […]
September 15, 2022
In Lafontaine v. McDaniel, 2022 ONSC 5153, the court dismissed the defendant’s motion to compel the plaintiff to attend a neuropsychology expert assessment and to extend the deadline to serve the expert’s report. The motion was heard on August 5, 2022. The proposed expert examination was scheduled for August 9, 2022. The trial was scheduled […]
September 13, 2022
In Leblanc v. The Personal Insurance Co. et al., 2022 ONSC 5130, the sole shareholder of a corporate party sought to represent the corporation. This individual is not a lawyer. Rule 15.01(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure states that a corporate party must be represented by a lawyer, except with leave of the court. […]
August 23, 2022
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mugizi v. Ngo, 2022 ONCA 595, shows the risks of not moving actions forward. The plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident in January 2014. An action was commenced in March 2015. The action was struck from the trial list in December 2019 because the plaintiff had not […]
