J. Melekhovets

At a case conference, the parties sought directions after their damages experts met ('hot tubbed') and the plaintiffs' expert wished to revise his report based on concessions made.

The defendants opposed, arguing the plaintiffs should bring a formal motion to allow pre-trial cross-examination.

The court held that requiring a formal motion for this procedural issue was inefficient and disproportionate under the Hryniak principles.

Pursuant to Rule 50.13(6), the court granted the plaintiffs leave to deliver an amended expert report without a motion.

The court held a multi-stage pre-trial conference in a defamation action to ensure an efficient and organized trial.

The judge expressed concern about the plaintiffs' ability to prove damages commensurate with the litigation costs and the lengthy delay since publication.

Directions were issued to streamline the trial process, including requiring evidence in chief by affidavit (except for one plaintiff), exchanging expert reports, facilitating expert meetings, and mandating the use of video conferencing for most foreign witnesses to reduce costs and delays.