Najma Rashid

The defendant brought a motion to adjourn the pre-trial conference and trial of a motor vehicle accident action.

The plaintiffs had served several expert reports, including a new economic loss report and a biomechanics report, shortly before the deadline and trial date.

The defendant argued that additional time was required to obtain responding expert reports, conduct further defence medical examinations, and pursue documentary discovery from non-parties.

The court granted the adjournment, finding that the prejudice to the defendant in proceeding to trial without the opportunity to fully defend the claims outweighed the prejudice to the plaintiffs caused by the delay.

The applicants, a husband and wife who lived and worked on a farm together, were both injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

Disputes arose with the insurer, and both applicants filed applications for arbitration.

The parties consented to combining the applications.

The arbitrator found that because the applicants' duties with respect to their home and farm were intertwined, there were common issues of fact and law, and combining the claims would be the most just, quickest, and least expensive means to deal with the applications pursuant to Rule 30 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

The applications were ordered to be combined.