Is Rule 76 intended to permit short trials for simple cases with 5 medical experts, surveillance and significant issues on credibility?
Ontario, Canada
The following excerpt is from Gaukel v. Thukral, 2008 CanLII 58152 (ON SC):
The intent of Rule 76 is to permit short trials for simple cases. In my view the rule is not intended for cases of 6 ½ days, with five medical experts, surveillance evidence and significant issues on credibility. Dowe-Salter v. Pickering (Town), [2000] O.J. 3818 (Div. Ct.)
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
Can a non-expert expert give evidence in a motor vehicle accident case that does not contradict the findings of an expert? (Ontario, Canada)
If a defence expert has been videotaped at trial, is the defence expert required to be reviewed by the other defence expert? (Ontario, Canada)
How has the court treated the issue of credibility in the trial of a witness in a dog case? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the case law on medical malpractice in the context of medical negligence cases? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the case law on expert testimony in medical malpractice cases? (Ontario, Canada)
When there are two opposing expert opinions in a medical malpractice case, is it appropriate for a motions judge to weigh evidence and make findings of credibility? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the case law on the admissibility of expert evidence in medical malpractice cases? (Ontario, Canada)
Is there any case law or case law that supports the argument that a judge should consider some of the issues before the trial of the others? (Ontario, Canada)
Can punitive damages be certified as a common issue for the first common issues trial? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the case law on medical malpractice in the context of medical negligence? (Ontario, Canada)
