2 total
The court granted an unopposed trial adjournment due to an unresponsive plaintiff but set a peremptory date.
The plaintiff's counsel sought removal as solicitor of record, and the plaintiff sought an adjournment of a breach of contract trial due to the plaintiff's failure to provide instructions or retain new counsel.
The defendant did not oppose the adjournment.
The court vacated the existing trial date and set a new peremptory trial date, emphasizing the plaintiff's responsibility to proceed with or without counsel, given the history of delays.
Motions to strike summary judgment motions granted; court emphasizes case management and proportionality over premature summary judgment.
The court heard two separate motions to strike or stay pending summary judgment motions on the Commercial List.
Applying the principles from Combined Air and the proportionality requirements of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that concerns about the appropriateness of summary judgment motions should be addressed through case management rather than formal motions to strike.
The court reviewed the proposed summary judgment motions in both actions and concluded that neither was an appropriate candidate for summary judgment due to the complexity of the issues, the voluminous records, and the need for a full trial to appreciate the evidence.
Both summary judgment motions were directed not to proceed, and the parties were ordered to prepare for trial.
