Monthly Archives: March 2009
I Want Your Expert’s File (please)
On behalf of Bougadis, Chang LLP Barristers posted in court civil procedure, experts, production of documents on
Case Comment – Ramer Builders Supplies (Toronto) Ltd. v. Leva (2009 Ontario Superior Court of Justice)
Can your expert’s file, despite your claim of litigation privilege, be produced based on questions asked at Discovery? The answer in Ramer Building Supplies was “yes”. Mr. Justice Fragomeni ordered production of the plaintiff expert’s draft report and the expert’s meeting notes (made while meeting with the plaintiff).
It was ordered pursuant to Rule 31.06 of Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure. It follows Aviaco International Leasing Inc.… Continue Reading
Changing Ontario Court Rules – January, 2010
On behalf of Bougadis, Chang LLP Barristers posted in court civil procedure on
Many Ontario lawsuits will be conducted differently starting January 1, 2010. The government release in December, 2008 is found here.
The Honourable Coulter Osborne, Q.C. made a series of recommendations in late 2007, various of which will be implemented in January, 2010. You can find the report here.
The changes are significant and numerous. A partial short list of important changes which appear ready to be implemented include:
Small Claims Court having an increased jurisdiction of $25,000 (up from $10,000); Simplified Procedure being increased to include claims up to $100,000 (up from $50,000); Discoveries of parties being limited to 7 hours (i.e.… Continue ReadingPlease Pay My Lawyer’s Bill > Appeal Court Upholds Ruling Against Insurance Company
On behalf of Bougadis, Chang LLP Barristers posted in coverage and duty to defend, insurance law on
Case Comment – Economical Insurance Group v. Fleming (2009 Ontario Court of Appeal)
The 12 year old friend of your child is seriously hurt while visiting your cottage. You tell your insurance company. A lawsuit is started and your insurance company agrees to respond to the claim. Then your insurer refuses to defend you. Now what?
In Economical Insurance Group v. Fleming (2008 Ontario Superior Court of Justice), the owners of the cottage brought a court motion against their insurance company, seeking protection of their insurance policy. … Continue Reading
Bill 59 Threshold > Chronic Pain Syndrome; Regular Work Hours Notwithstanding, Plaintiff Meets Test
On behalf of Bougadis, Chang LLP Barristers posted in damages, motor vehicle accident, personal injury on
Case Comment – Rio v. Lawrence (2009 Ont. S.C.)
This is an interesting read for lawyers who practice personal injury law in Ontario. It is another case recently interpreting the Bill 59 threshold for pain and suffering damages. For background, please see our March 4, 2009 entry.
This is a decision of Mr. Justice Gans of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. This accident occurred on October 5, 2001, approximately 7 years prior to the Trial. The Jury awarded $22,500 for pain and suffering damages (prior to the application of the $15,000 deductible) and $1,900 for income loss.… Continue Reading
Bill 59 Threshold – Interpretation – Pain and Suffering Damages
On behalf of Bougadis, Chang LLP Barristers posted in damages, motor vehicle accident, personal injury on
Case Comment – Xiao v. Gilkes (2009 Ont. S.C.)
This case is an interesting review and interpretation of the Bill 59 threshold for pain and suffering damages, arising from a motor vehicle accident which occurred on November 20, 2000.
In Ontario under the legislation governing motor vehicle accidents, the “Bill 164” regime was for accident which occurred between January 1, 1994 to October 31, 1996; a deductible of $10,000 applied to pain and suffering damages. The “Bill 59” regime applied to accidents occurring between November 1, 1996 to September 30, 2003; the deductible for pain and suffering damages increased to $15,000. … Continue Reading
Starting a Lawsuit in your Home Town – Change of Venue Principles Reviewed
On behalf of Bougadis, Chang LLP Barristers posted in change of venue, court civil procedure, motion on
Case Comment – Siemens Canada Limited v. City of Ottawa, (2008 Ont. S.C.)
This is an interesting review of the change of venue test, whereby the defendant may seek to move the lawsuit from one Registry in Ontario to another. This case is reported at Siemens Canada Ltd. v. Ottawa (City) (2008) 93 O.R. (3d) 220 (Ont. S.C.).
This case involves an aborted $217 million project whereby the plaintiff was to provide parts of a light rail system (LRT) for the City of Ottawa. … Continue Reading
We Are Proud to Serve These Communities. Click on the links below to learn more:
Greek | Hindi/Punjabi | ChineseTranslate to:
Categories
- accident benefits(32)
- Brain Injury(8)
- Car Accidents(24)
- damages(42)
- insurance law(92)
- motion(68)
- personal injury(102)
- slip and fall(17)
- sports accident(7)
Archives
Recent Posts
Bougadis, Chang LLP Barristers
55 Adelaide Street East, Suite 300
Toronto,
ON
M5C 1K6
Canada
Toronto Law Office Map
7895 Tranmere Drive, Unit #19
Mississauga, ON L5S 1V9
Canada
143 Clarence Street, Unit 5
Brampton, ON L6W 1T2
Canada
10 Milner Business Court, Suite 212
Scarborough, ON M1B 3C6
Canada
Phone: 416-703-2402
Phone: 1-888-378-3388
Fax: 416-703-2406