On a motion by a defendant in the main action and plaintiff in a companion contribution and indemnity action, the court considered whether two construction-related proceedings arising from a leaky warehouse roof should be tried together or consecutively.
Applying the Rule 6.01 gateway criteria and the factors identified in 1014864 Ontario Ltd. v. 1721789 Ontario Inc., the court found the actions arose from the same factual matrix, involved overlapping causation issues, and created a real risk of inconsistent factual findings if heard separately.
The court declined consolidation but ordered that the actions be tried one immediately following the other, with the main action proceeding first and common witnesses to be examined once subject to the trial judge's direction.
Costs were left for further written submissions.
