R. Levin

The plaintiff set the action down for trial.

The defendant subsequently brought a motion to compel answers to undertakings and refusals from discovery.

The plaintiff raised a preliminary objection that the defendant required leave under Rule 48.04(1) because defense counsel had completed a Certification Form, allegedly consenting to the action being placed on the trial list.

The Master dismissed the preliminary objection, finding that completing the Certification Form did not constitute consent under Rule 48.06(1), and therefore the defendant did not require leave to bring the motion.

The defendant Bolderson proposed to bring a summary judgment motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claim and the co-defendant's crossclaim arising from a motor vehicle accident.

A previous judge scheduled the motion but expressed concern about its appropriateness given the delivery of jury notices and the potential that it would not resolve all issues.

Following a case conference, the court directed the matter to proceed to the scheduled summary judgment motion.