M. Miculinic

The plaintiff brought a motion to extend the time to set the action down for trial and avoid administrative dismissal under Rule 48.14.

The underlying action involved a family dispute over a beneficial interest in a property.

The court found that the plaintiff provided an acceptable explanation for the delay, citing personal difficulties and issues retaining counsel.

Furthermore, the defendant failed to demonstrate any non-compensable prejudice resulting from the delay.

The motion was granted, allowing the action to proceed, but costs were awarded to the defendant as the plaintiff was seeking an indulgence.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking consolidation of two related actions—one commenced in Brampton and another in Ottawa—and requested that the consolidated proceeding be tried in Brampton.

The defendant agreed that the claims arose from the same occurrence but proposed that the actions be tried together rather than formally consolidated and argued that Ottawa was the more appropriate venue.

Applying the factors under Rule 13.1.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found that both locations had connections to the dispute but concluded that Ottawa was the preferred venue.

Considerations included judicial resource constraints in Brampton and the availability of mandatory mediation in Ottawa.

The court ordered that the proceedings be transferred to Ottawa and that the two actions be tried together or consecutively, with costs of the motion reserved to the trial judge.