2 total
The court dismissed a motion to compel late defence medical examinations, ruling that counsel's inattentiveness is not a reasonable explanation for delay.
The defendants brought a motion seeking an order to compel the plaintiff to attend three defence medical assessments and for leave to serve defence expert reports late, after failing to comply with the timelines mandated by Rule 53.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants failed to provide a "reasonable explanation" for their non-compliance, as required by Rule 53.08.
The court emphasized that administrative failures or inattentiveness by counsel or staff do not constitute a reasonable explanation for such delays.
Motion to strike jury notice due to COVID-19 delays dismissed as plaintiff failed to prove prejudice.
The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendant's jury notice in a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle collision, citing anticipated delays in scheduling civil jury trials due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The court granted the plaintiff leave to bring the motion under Rule 48.04(1) but ultimately dismissed the motion to strike the jury notice.
The court found that the plaintiff had not moved the action forward expeditiously prior to the pandemic and failed to demonstrate that any potential delay outweighed the defendant's substantive right to a jury trial, noting that civil jury trials were likely to resume by May 2022.
