P. Muirhead

The defendants brought a motion seeking an order bifurcating a jury trial so that liability would be tried first and damages later in a motor vehicle accident action involving catastrophic brain injury and complex insurance coverage issues.

The court held it lacked jurisdiction to bifurcate liability and damages where a valid jury notice had been delivered and the parties did not consent, relying on binding Court of Appeal authority.

The court further noted that even if jurisdiction existed, bifurcation would risk duplicative evidence, inconsistent findings, additional delay and cost, and could undermine settlement incentives.

The motion was dismissed and costs were awarded to the responding plaintiff.

The self-represented appellant appealed a trial judgment following a jury verdict, arguing the trial judge erred in several evidentiary rulings, including the exclusion of a video and Building Code extracts, the admission of a psychiatric report, and the redaction of an occupational therapist's report.

She also argued the jury verdict should have been set aside and that transcript errors infringed her right to a bilingual trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's discretionary evidentiary rulings, ample evidence to support the jury's verdict, and that the transcript errors did not affect the jury's appreciation of the evidence or deprive the appellant of any grounds of appeal.