Brannan Meiklejohn

The defendant union brought a motion to bifurcate the trial of three related wrongful dismissal actions, seeking to separate the employment contract issues from the election and membership issues raised by some plaintiffs.

The defendant also sought to have the actions assigned to case management.

The court dismissed the motion for bifurcation, finding that the issues were complex and intertwined, and the defendant failed to demonstrate a clear benefit to severing them.

The court also declined to order case management, as there was no demonstrated need for court intervention at this time.

The actions were ordered to be tried together on consent.

The sole officer, director, and shareholder of a corporate plaintiff sought leave under Rule 51.01(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to represent the corporation after its solicitor was removed from the record.

The defendants opposed the request, arguing that the corporation’s financial ability to retain counsel and the proposed representative’s litigation capability should be considered.

The court reviewed conflicting authorities on whether a closely held corporation’s financial capacity to hire counsel is relevant.

Applying Lamond v. Smith, the court held that where the corporation is closely held and the moving party is the sole director and shareholder, the corporation’s financial position is not determinative.

Finding the moving party competent to articulate the corporation’s position and having authority to bind it, the court granted leave to represent the corporate plaintiff.