Darla A. Wilson

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking leave under Rule 48.04 to amend their Statement of Claim, move the action to the Simplified Rules, and strike the jury notice.

The action, arising from a motor vehicle accident, had already been set down for trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no substantial or unexpected change in circumstances to justify granting leave.

Furthermore, the court held that the right to a jury trial is a substantive right and there was no advantage to moving the action to the Simplified Procedure at this late stage, especially given the plaintiffs' failure to serve expert reports.

The plaintiffs requested a case conference to fix a trial date despite failing to complete a mandatory mediation by the court-ordered deadline.

One of the plaintiffs booked a vacation that conflicted with the scheduled mediation date, showing disregard for the court's prior order.

The court refused to dispense with the mediation requirement or hold a trial date as a placeholder, and consequently struck the action from the trial list until mediation is completed and the matter is truly ready for trial.

The court convened a case conference for four related product liability actions involving fires allegedly caused by defective ventilation units.

After four years of case management, the court discovered that counsel for the defendant had failed to disclose numerous other actions across the province involving the same parties and identical issues, including one that had already proceeded to trial.

Citing counsel's lack of candor and repeated failure to comply with court orders, the case management judge struck the actions from the trial list and declined to continue case managing them.

This endorsement addresses a dispute regarding trial readiness in a personal injury action.

The plaintiffs sought to set a trial date, but the defendant objected, citing outstanding productions, unanswered undertakings, and refusals from discovery.

The court, in a case conference, found the case was not "trial ready" due to these unresolved interlocutory matters, including unquantified loss of income claims, unobtained employment files, and unserved expert reports.

Despite the four-year period since discoveries, counsel had not completed necessary steps.

The court emphasized the scarcity of trial dates and declined to book a date for an unprepared case, striking it from the trial list.

The defendant sought an adjournment of a long-standing motor vehicle accident trial, scheduled for June 2022, to allow for a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) determination regarding the plaintiff's employment status at the time of the accident.

The WSIAT application was filed at the eleventh hour, a decade after the action commenced and after multiple trial dates had been fixed.

The court dismissed the adjournment request, finding it unfair to the plaintiff to further delay the case due to the defendant's belated application, and that it was not in the interests of justice.

The plaintiffs sought an adjournment of a fixed 32-day jury trial, scheduled to commence on May 16, 2022, due to their intention to appeal a prior order that dismissed their request to add a punitive damages claim and denied leave for a further affidavit of documents.

The court denied the adjournment, emphasizing that the action, stemming from a 2014 incident, had been set down for trial twice and counsel had previously certified readiness.

The judge found no extenuating circumstances to justify adjourning a long-booked trial, noting the plaintiffs' delay in seeking amendments and pursuing an appeal.

A case conference was held after a scheduled 10-day trial was adjourned due to a lack of judicial resources.

The defendant hospital sought leave to bring motions for partial summary judgment and security for costs.

The court denied leave for the summary judgment motion, noting it should have been brought before the action was set down for trial, and directed that any motion for security for costs proceed through regular channels rather than on an urgent basis.

The court also ordered further discovery on the plaintiff's loss of income claim and directed counsel to select a trial date in 2022, emphasizing the unacceptability of further delaying a 10-year-old case.

The plaintiffs sought an adjournment of a fixed trial date in two related actions alleging solicitor negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against the defendant lawyer.

The request was based on a recent change of defence counsel due to an "unavoidable conflict of interest" and the plaintiffs' expert's inability to produce a report in time.

Despite both counsel agreeing to the adjournment, the court, noting the parties' advanced age and previous judicial directives for expeditious resolution, declined the request, emphasizing that adjournments of fixed trial dates are granted only in extenuating circumstances and that the delay was not sufficiently justified.

The defendants in a motor vehicle accident claim sought an adjournment of the trial to bring a motion to consolidate the action with the plaintiff's separate defamation lawsuit against a newspaper.

The defendants argued the plaintiff was claiming psychological damages in both actions.

The court dismissed the request for an adjournment, finding the two pieces of litigation to be separate and distinct, and noting the defendants could cross-examine the plaintiff and experts on the overlapping issues without consolidating the trials.

The applicant brought a consent motion to transfer a commercial lease application from Brampton to Toronto to be heard with a companion application.

The sole reason for the requested transfer was to secure an earlier hearing date, as the parties were dissatisfied with the dates available in Brampton.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the desire for an earlier hearing date does not justify transferring a proceeding to a jurisdiction with no connection to the matter, as doing so would inappropriately use other regions to arbitrage court schedules.

This is a personal injury action where the parties jointly sought to adjourn a jury trial to bring a summary judgment motion on a limitation period defence.

The court denied the adjournment, emphasizing that trial dates are a precious commodity and that the summary judgment motion could have been brought years earlier.

However, the court directed that the summary judgment motion on the limitation period issue be heard by the trial judge prior to the scheduled jury sittings, setting a timetable for materials.

In a wrongful dismissal claim, the defendant sought an adjournment of a scheduled 3-day summary trial, citing busyness and inability to adhere to a court-ordered timetable for document delivery.

The plaintiff opposed the adjournment.

The court denied the defendant's request, emphasizing that fixed trial dates are serious and require exceptional circumstances for adjournment, which were not present.

The court ordered the defendant to deliver its affidavit of documents promptly and for the trial to proceed as scheduled.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking the return of a $20,000 deposit and damages related to an aborted real estate transaction.

The defendant, the vendor, failed to provide full access for an inspection, which prevented the plaintiff from securing financing.

Although the defendant later offered to cure the breach, the plaintiff had already purchased another property.

The court granted relief from forfeiture, ordering the return of the deposit, but dismissed claims for damages based on the difference in property prices, land transfer tax, and interest rates, finding them not recoverable or too remote.

The plaintiff was awarded costs for the aborted transaction and the motion.

At a case conference for a personal injury action arising from a 2013 motor vehicle accident, the court addressed the plaintiff's failure to serve an expert report on the statutory threshold issue.

The court ordered the plaintiff to serve the report by May 31, 2022, rather than waiting until the 2023 trial date.

The court also granted the defendant leave to bring a motion to dismiss the co-plaintiff's claim for failing to appoint new counsel or file a notice to act in person under Rule 15.

The self-represented plaintiff sought an adjournment of a fixed trial date in an action arising from alleged water damage caused by an appliance repair in 2013.

The plaintiff argued he needed more time to obtain the technician's employment file and conduct an examination under oath.

The court denied the adjournment, noting the age of the action, that full production had already been made, and that the plaintiff had ample time to prepare since filing a notice of intention to act in person.

The defendant requested a case conference to compel the plaintiff to sign a medical authorization form prior to an independent medical examination with a psychiatrist.

The plaintiff's counsel failed to attend the case conference despite being notified.

The court held that the issue could be determined expeditiously at a case conference under Rule 50.13.

The court ordered the plaintiff to execute the authorization, noting that it simply sets out the plaintiff's obligation to provide an accurate medical history and list of injuries, which is standard and necessary for the examiner to produce a report under Rule 53.03.

The plaintiff was successful on an unopposed motion to amend the statement of claim to substitute the names of previously unidentified defendants.

The defendant Torrecampo opposed the motion without evidence of prejudice, leading to unnecessary cross-examinations and wasted time.

The court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs of $9,000 plus HST and disbursements, finding the amount reasonable and proportionate under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs requested an urgent case conference to schedule a mediation and fix a trial date before the action was administratively dismissed.

One of the plaintiffs objected, citing an upcoming motion regarding the removal of his counsel in a separate action.

The court found it unfair to delay the other plaintiffs and ordered that mediation be held by June 30, 2022, and that the action appear on the trial scheduling court list on April 11, 2022.

The defendant requested an adjournment of a fixed trial date at a case conference, citing outstanding production issues including pre-accident medical notes and employment records.

The plaintiffs opposed the adjournment.

The court dismissed the request, noting that discoveries occurred over a year prior and the defendant had ample time to bring production motions.

The court maintained the fixed trial date, emphasizing that such dates are only adjourned in extenuating circumstances, which were not present.

In a dental negligence action, the defendant objected to the plaintiffs' expert report from Dr. Yanney, arguing it contained opinions on surgeries performed in 1991, which were not pleaded as negligent in the Statement of Claim.

The court agreed that the expert cannot offer opinions on matters not before the court for adjudication.

The plaintiffs were directed to obtain a new report from Dr. Yanney limited to the defendant's treatment from 2012 onwards.