if he is confronted by other motions such as a motion for summary judgment at the instance of the respondents: Mester v.
Wah,  O.J. No. 4274, 2016 ONSC 4887 (S.C.J.), at para. 5.
We also note that there is no evidence under oath of any kind,
be it in the form of affidavits or examinations, generated in the
action. The rule 2.1.01 request is clearly premature.
 We are unable to conclude that the appellant’s statement
of claim asserts a claim that is frivolous, vexatious or an abuse
of the court’s process, measured by the criteria in the cases.
Once a pleading asserts a cause of action and does not bear the
hallmarks of frivolous, vexatious or abusive litigation, resort
to rule 2.1 is not appropriate as a means for bringing the action
to an early end. The motion judge erred in truncating the normal process.
 For these reasons, the appeal is allowed and the order of
the motion judge is set aside including the cost award. Costs,
payable by the respondents jointly and severally, are fixed
at $3,000 for the appeal and $2,000 for the motion below, both
inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.
Bruff-Murphy et al. v. Gunawardena
[Indexed as: Bruff-Murphy v. Gunawardena]
2017 ONCA 502
Court of Appeal for Ontario, Lauwers, Hourigan and Benotto JJ.A.
June 16, 2017
Evidence — Expert evidence — Trial judge erring in qualifying
defence psychiatrist as expert in personal injury action despite having
serious reservations about witness’ methodology and independence —
Trial judge failing to conduct cost-benefit analysis with respect to witness’ evidence as he erroneously believed that he was obliged to qualify
witness as expert if witness met Mohan threshold — Trial judge also erring in failing to exclude witness’ evidence or to alert jury to problems
with witness’ testimony after witness clearly became partisan advocate
for defence — Trial judge’s gatekeeping role not ending when he qualified witness as expert — Admission of witness’ testimony resulting in
miscarriage of justice.
The plaintiff claimed to have suffered soft tissue damages when her vehicle
was rear-ended by the defendant’s vehicle. She also alleged that the accident had
left her with a chronic pain condition with attendant anxiety and depression. One