Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-12-00461725 DATE: 20220509 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Gordon Allen Field, Plaintiff AND: Mohammedali Zainab, Defendant AND: Prime Real Estate Group Inc. and 111 Grangeway Inc., Third Parties

BEFORE: D.A. Wilson J.

COUNSEL: Mark Elkin, for the Plaintiff Nazli Buhary and David Zuber, for the Defendant Saro A. Setrakian, for the Third Parties

HEARD via teleconference: May 3, 2022

Endorsement

[1] This is an action for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident that occurred in 2010. The claim was issued in 2012 and it was set down for trial in 2017. The case was fixed for trial in June 2020, but that did not proceed due to Covid. The length of trial was increased at the pretrial and it was again fixed for trial for May 31, 2021. That trial also did not proceed because of the pandemic. The case was then fixed for trial for the June 2022 jury sittings.

[2] On April 21, the trial office received a letter from the solicitor for the Defendant requesting an adjournment of the trial date; a case conference was convened before me today. On April 20, 2022, the Defendant filed an application with the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal for a determination of whether the Plaintiff was an employee in the course of his employment at the time of the accident and consequently, his right to sue has been taken away. Counsel wishes to adjourn the trial date so the WSIAT decision can be rendered after a hearing. The Third Party supports the adjournment request, but the Plaintiff vehemently opposes it.

[3] This action was commenced a decade ago. The Defendant has had years to bring its WSIAT application if it was so inclined. Counsel apparently attended at least 2 pretrials, perhaps 3, and there was no suggestion that a WSIAT hearing was necessary prior to trial. When counsel fix trial dates and advise the Court the case is ready for trial, that is a significant event and it means that all interlocutory matters have been dealt with and there are no barriers to the case being tried. No satisfactory explanation was offered by counsel for the Defendant for the filing of the WSIAT application at the eleventh hour. In my view, if the Defendant and/or Third Party felt that the application was necessary, it would have been filed years ago. At this point, it is unfair to the Plaintiff to further delay this case so that an application can be heard and a decision rendered at some point many months down the road. Had the pandemic not interfered, this trial would have proceeded 2 years ago without the application being heard.

[4] I am not persuaded it is in the interests of justice or of the parties to adjourn the June 2022 trial date and I decline to do so.

Date: May 9, 2022