Skip to the content
  • Areas of Practice
  • Mediation
  • Our Lawyers
  • News
  • Case Summaries
    • LAT Law Cases
    • Commercial/Tort Law Cases
  • Areas of Practice
  • Mediation
  • Our Lawyers
  • News
  • Case Summaries
    • LAT Law Cases
    • Commercial/Tort Law Cases

LAT Case Law Summaries

Commercial/Tort Case Law Summaries

Back To All Case Summaries
Back To All Case Summaries

Lambert v. Maracle, 2019 ONSC 7003

  • December 3, 2019

This claim arose from a single-vehicle accident. The plaintiff suffered catastrophic brain injuries. He sued the alleged driver of the vehicle (who denied being in the vehicle at the time), as well as Aviva, his underinsured/uninsured/OPCF44 protection provider. Aviva had sworn an affidavit of documents (AOD) in July 2017 and served it in June 2019, prior to the plaintiff serving a sworn AOD. The plaintiff did not attend the discovery and brought a motion striking the Notice of Examination and Certificate of Non-Attendance. Justice MacLeod-Beliveau held that Aviva’s AOD did not comply with the Rules for two reasons: (1) It did not contain all of the documents in Aviva’s possession, control, or power at the time it was served. Aviva’s strategy of swearing the affidavit two years prior to serving it was clearly meant as a strategy to avoid disclosing documents prior to the examination for discovery. Justice MacLeod-Beliveau held that the Rules required the affidavit to be current as of the time of serving it in order to exercise the right of first discovery. (2) It did not contain all of the policy documentation. Although auto insurance is highly regulated in Ontario, and all policy documents were available to the plaintiff online, the Rules required Aviva to include copies of the policy and the endorsements in place at the time of the accident. Justice MacLeod-Beliveau ordered that the defendants all be examined for discovery first, and that the plaintiff be examined last. She noted that under the Rules of Professional Conduct, counsel for the plaintiff was not permitted to tell the plaintiff the evidence of the defendants, so Aviva’s concerns about the tailoring of evidence was not overly relevant.

Full decision here

TGP Analysis

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Vestibulum placerat ex vitae dui dignissim, in iaculis tellus venenatis. Nam aliquet mauris eros. Mauris vitae justo sit amet nisi dictum euismod in sed nisl. Donec blandit, justo eu pellentesque sodales, eros urna dignissim tortor, non imperdiet enim massa ut orci. Pellentesque id lacus viverra, consectetur neque ac, congue lorem.

PrevPrevious Case
Next CaseNext
  • FILED UNDER Examination for discovery, Right to Conduct First
SHARE

Contact Us

150 York Street, Suite 1800
Toronto, Ontario M5H 3S5

416.507.1800

416.507.1850

eodonnell@tgplawyers.com

  • Areas of Practice
  • Mediation
  • Our Lawyers
  • News
  • Case Summaries
  • Careers

Contact Us

150 York Street, Suite 1800
Toronto, Ontario M5H 3S5

416.507.1800

416.507.1850

eodonnell@tgplawyers.com

© 2020 Thomas Gold Pettingill LLP Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Statement of Principles

Powered by Crow & Pitcher

Contact Us

150 York Street, Suite 1800
Toronto, Ontario M5H 3S5

416.507.1800

416.507.1850

eodonnell@tgplawyers.com