J. Margolin

The defendants brought motions seeking to adjourn an upcoming wrongful dismissal and defamation jury trial sine die to allow for summary judgment motions, and to sever the claims against one defendant for a separate trial.

The court dismissed the motion to sever, finding significant factual overlap between the claims and concluding that a single trial was more proportionate and efficient.

The court also dismissed the adjournment motion, noting that the eve of trial is rarely appropriate for summary judgment motions, especially where credibility issues exist, and that delaying the trial would prejudice the plaintiff.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for assault against his ex-girlfriend.

At trial, the defence called a witness who testified that the complainant admitted to fabricating the assault to gain an advantage in a custody dispute.

Defence counsel inadvertently failed to put this statement to the complainant during cross-examination.

The Crown did not object until closing submissions, at which point defence counsel immediately requested to recall the complainant.

The trial judge refused the request and convicted the appellant.

On appeal, the Superior Court of Justice found that the trial judge erred in refusing to recall the witness, and that the Crown's untimely objection contributed to trial unfairness.

The conviction was quashed and a new trial ordered.