Barry Chobotar

The defendants appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing their request to bifurcate a personal injury jury trial into separate liability and damages phases.

The Divisional Court upheld the dismissal, finding that the case was not exceptional enough to warrant splitting the trial.

The court also affirmed that binding precedent generally prohibits the bifurcation of trials where a jury notice has been served, and declined to alter that law in this factual context.

The defendants appealed a condition imposed by a motions judge on an order compelling the plaintiff to attend defence medical examinations.

The plaintiff, injured in a motor vehicle accident, had previously been examined by experts retained by the statutory accident benefits insurer.

The motions judge upheld the order for tort medical examinations but added a condition prohibiting the defendants from calling the accident benefits experts at trial.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and struck the condition, finding that the motions judge erred by interfering with the Master's discretion without finding an error in principle, and by preempting the trial judge's statutory discretion regarding the number of expert witnesses.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a decision refusing to bifurcate a personal injury trial where a jury notice was outstanding.

The motion judge found that there were conflicting decisions on whether bifurcation could be ordered in the face of an outstanding jury notice, specifically noting a conflict between the lower court's decision and Morniga v. State Farm.

Finding the issue to be of general importance to the personal injury bar and the administration of justice, the court granted leave to appeal.