3 total
Costs of successful motion to strike jury notice fixed at $8,000 payable in the cause.
Following a successful motion to strike the defendant's jury notice due to COVID-19 delays, the plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs of $14,885.98.
The defendant argued for costs in the cause or a reduction, noting the novelty of the issue in Windsor.
The court found the issue was not legally novel enough to warrant no costs, but agreed the plaintiffs' claimed hours were excessive.
Costs were fixed at $8,000 payable in the cause.
The court struck the defendant's jury notice to avoid substantial pandemic-related trial delays and ensure timely justice.
The plaintiffs moved to strike the defendant's jury notice and requested a judge-alone trial, potentially virtual and in tranches, citing substantial trial delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The defendant opposed, arguing for the preservation of the right to a jury trial and suggesting a "wait and see" approach.
The court granted leave for the motion, finding a "substantial or unexpected change in circumstances" due to the pandemic.
Considering the local court conditions in Windsor, including limited courtroom capacity and a significant backlog of criminal and family cases, the court determined that a civil jury trial would face inevitable and considerable delay into 2022 or beyond.
The court found that the delay constituted prejudice to the plaintiffs, outweighing the defendant's right to a jury trial, and that a judge-alone virtual trial would better serve the interests of justice by providing a more expeditious resolution.
Appeal from case management master dismissed; no error in discovery scheduling decision.
The appellants appealed a case conference endorsement and order of a master concerning discovery scheduling and responsibility for costs after examinations for discovery were cancelled due to hazardous winter weather conditions.
The appellants argued that a discovery plan under Rule 29.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure superseded the timetable, that sanctions under Rule 34.15 applied to counsel’s non‑attendance, and that the master failed to properly consider weather evidence.
The court held that no valid written discovery plan existed and that the master’s timetable governed the order of examinations.
Rule 34.15 applies only to the conduct of the person being examined, not to counsel conducting the examination.
Finding no error of law, misapprehension of evidence, or improper exercise of discretion, the court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the master’s conclusions.
