SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
COURT FILE NO.: 10-CV-49081
DATE: 2015/09/23
RE: Craig Ryan, Jim Ryan, Barbara Ryan, Laura Ryan and Collin Ryan (a minor by his Litigation Guardian Barbara Ryan, Plaintiffs
AND
Betty Ann Heise, Michelle Heise, Matt Dolan, James Allen Dolan, John Doe and Intact Insurance Companay, Defendants
BEFORE: C.T. Hackland J.
COUNSEL:
Mr. T. Connolly, for the Plaintiffs (Responding Party)
Ms. T. Lemke, for the Defendant, Betty Ann Heise (Moving Party)
Mr. P. Muirhead, for the Defendant, Intact Insurance Co. (Moving Party)
Mr. D. Hollingsworth, for the Defendant, Michelle Heise (Moving Party
Ms. N. Rodriguez, for the Defendants, Matt and James Dolan (Moving Party)
HEARD: September 23, 2015, (Ottawa)
ENDORSEMENT
[1] This and 2 related actions arise out of a motor vehicle accident occurring in August of 2008. The plaintiff, Craig Ryan, is in his early 20's and he suffered major head injuries including brain damage. He will likely remain unemployable and will require long term attendant care. This was a single vehicle accident and it is not known if Craig was driving or if his friend Michelle (also seriously injured) was driving. There are complex liability issues and complex coverage issues for the liability and OPCF 44R insurers. The 5 week jury trial is scheduled for November 2016.
[2] The moving parties seek an order bifurcating a trial of the liability issues, with the damages issues to be tried at a later date. The Plaintiff, Craig Ryan, opposes this relief.
[3] I decline to bifurcate this trial for the following reasons:
(1) I am bound by the decision of our Court of Appeal in Kovach (Litigation Guardian of) v. Kovach, 2010 ONCA 126 which holds that the Superior Court has no jurisdiction to bifurcate a trial of liability and damages where there is a valid Jury Notice and the parties do not consent. I see nothing in the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Hryniak v. Mauldin 2014 SCC 7, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 87 that would mandate a review of Kovach.
(2) In any event, the Hryniak guidelines would militate against holding two jury trials in the same proceeding with the likelihood of duplication of evidence, possible conflicting findings of fact and extra delay and expense.
(3) The plaintiff, Craig Ryan, is in financial need having drawn down his SAB rehab attendant care benefits as this accident occurred over 7 years ago.
(4) The liability and insurance coverage issues are quite complex and there may be crossover involving expert evidence (engineering and medical), as the claimants were thrown from their vehicle and there is a live and significant issue as to which of them was driving.
(5) A separate jury trial on liability may allow some of the insurers to know with certainty as to what their exposure is and perhaps allow them to withdraw from the action; however, I would view that as a disincentive to a negotiated settlement of the case.
[4] The responding party, Craig Ryan is entitled to his costs of this Motion which I fix in the sum of $15,000.00, inclusive of fees and disbursements, plus applicable HST, payable forthwith. This sum will be paid by the moving parties apportioned as they may agree or by my further Order, if required.
Justice Charles T. Hackland
Date Released: September 23, 2015
COURT FILE NO.: 10-CV-49081
DATE: 2015/09/23
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Craig Ryan, Jim Ryan, Barbara Ryan, Laura Ryan and Collin Ryan (a minor by his Litigation Guardian Barbara Ryan, Plaintiffs
AND
Betty Ann Heise, Michelle Heise, Matt Dolan, James Allen Dolan, John Doe and Intact Insurance Companay, Defendants
BEFORE: C.T. Hackland J.
COUNSEL:
Mr. T. Connolly, for the Plaintiffs (Responding Party)
Ms. T. Lemke, for the Defendant, Betty Ann Heise (Moving Party)
Mr. P. Muirhead, for the Defendant, Intact Insurance Co. (Moving Party)
Mr. D. Hollingsworth, for the Defendant, Michelle Heise (Moving Party
Ms. N. Rodriguez, for the Defendants, Matt and James Dolan (Moving Party)
ENDORSEMENT
Justice Charles T. Hackland
Date Released: September 23, 2015