Justice Petersen’s decision in Okafor v. Wilson, 2025 ONSC 6972, is a strong reminder that the post‑2022 expert‑evidence rules in Ontario are being strictly enforced. Meredith Harper of our firm, Flaherty McCarthy LLP, successfully opposed the plaintiff’s motion to extend the time to serve two late expert reports, preserving the January 2026 trial date and protecting the defendant from unfair prejudice.
Late expert reports and Rule 53
The plaintiff in this motor vehicle action sought to rely on a future care report and an orthopaedic report that were served about four months after the deadline tied to the November 28, 2024 pre‑trial. Rather than retaining experts in time, plaintiff’s counsel admitted they delayed doing so in the hope of settling at pre‑trial and avoiding the cost of reports, and only later moved for an extension under Rule 53.03(4).
Justice Petersen held that the criteria in Rule 53.08 (i.e. reasonable explanation, lack of non‑compensable prejudice, and no undue trial delay) should guide the exercise of discretion on such motions, in line with recent authorities like Seo v. Francis, 2024 ONSC 4341, and Rosato v. Singh et al, 2025 ONSC 1798 and the 2022 amendments aimed at combatting a “culture of delay.”
No reasonable excuse, real prejudice, and a win for the defence
The motion record offered only a bare reference to “simple oversight” and experts’ busy schedules, without concrete particulars or evidence of unavoidable delay. Justice Petersen found the real cause was a deliberate strategic choice not to comply with the Rules, which did not amount to a reasonable explanation.
Because the defence had reasonably declined to incur the cost of responding experts while the admissibility of the late reports was unresolved, granting the motion so close to the January 2026 sittings would have either forced the defendant to scramble for experts within about 30 days or required adjourning the trial by at least several months. The court concluded this would result in significant prejudice to the defendant and further delay contrary to the purpose of the Rule 53 amendments, and dismissed the motion.
Key takeaway for insurers and defendants
Okafor v. Wilson confirms that Ontario courts will hold parties to the expert‑report timelines where non‑compliance reflects tactical decisions rather than genuine inadvertence or unavoidable obstacles. For insurers and defendants, the decision underscores the value of a disciplined procedural strategy: by insisting on timely expert evidence and resisting prejudicial late reports, defence counsel can protect trial dates, control costs, and ensure disputes are adjudicated fairly on the evidence that complies with the Rules.
This result highlights Flaherty McCarthy LLP’s expertise in navigating the evolving expert‑evidence regime and Meredith Harper’s success in leveraging Rule 53 to safeguard her client’s position in a high‑stakes personal injury claim.
