Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-16-2368 DATE: 20181130 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

RE: HTS ENGINEERING LTD. Plaintiff

v.

GURJOT MARWAH, EQUIPEMENT NAD INC. and NAD KLIMA ONTARIO INC. Defendants

BEFORE: Daley, RSJ.

COUNSEL: K.L. MacDonald, counsel for the Plaintiff J. Mazzola, counsel for the Defendants

HEARD: In Chambers

Endorsement

Introduction

Counsel for the parties in this action appeared before Dennison, J. on October 11, 2018 with respect to a motion to set a Discovery Plan and for the service of affidavits of documents.

Following the order of Dennison, J. of October 11, 2018, counsel for the defendants wrote to the court on November 22, 2018 requesting that this case be placed under case management in accordance with Rule 77 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for the reasons that since the order of Dennison, J., the plaintiff has failed to comply with the terms of that order, including paying the costs awarded within the time allotted.

Rule 77 does not apply to civil cases in Central West Region but only with respect to civil actions pending in Ottawa, Toronto and the County of Essex. Thus, there is no jurisdiction for this court to consider the defendants' request for case management pursuant to this rule.

Rule 50.07 provides jurisdiction to a judge, at a pre-trial conference to engage in case management of the action for the purposes of trial scheduling and trial management. Given the state of the present action, this rule has no application in the circumstances.

Rule 37.15, does provide that the Chief Justice or the Associate Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Justice, or the Regional Senior Judge may establish a form of case management where pending motions are complicated or there are several proceedings. The rule reads as follows:

Motions in a Complicated Proceeding or Series of Proceedings

37.15 (1) Where a proceeding involves complicated issues or where there are two or more proceedings that involve similar issues, the Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Justice, a regional senior judge of the Superior Court of Justice or a judge designated by any of them may direct that all motions in the proceeding or proceedings be heard by a particular judge, and rule 37.03 (place of hearing of motions) does not apply to those motions. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 37.15 (1) ; O. Reg. 292/99, ss. 2 (3), 4.

(1.1) A judge who is directed to hear all motions under subrule (1) may refer to a master any motion within the jurisdiction of a master under subrule 37.02 (2) unless the judge who made the direction under subrule (1) directs otherwise. O. Reg. 348/97, s. 2.

(1.2) A judge who is directed to hear all motions under subrule (1) and a master to whom a motion is referred under subrule (1.1) may give such directions and make such procedural orders as are necessary to promote the most expeditious and least expensive determination of the proceeding. O. Reg. 438/08, s. 37 (1); O. Reg. 394/09, s. 16.

(2) A judge who hears motions pursuant to a direction under subrule (1) shall not preside at the trial of the actions or the hearing of the applications except with the written consent of all parties. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 37.15 (2) ; O. Reg. 438/08, s. 37 (2).

Although the request for case management was not made under Rule 37.15, as this is the only basis upon which case management could otherwise be granted, I have considered the request in terms of that rule.

It is clear from the letter of request from counsel for the defendants that the request for case management is simply based on alleged non-compliance by the plaintiff with respect to certain procedural orders, including the payment of costs. There is no information provided which indicates that the case "involves complicated issues" or "two or more proceedings that involve similar issues", and as such the request for case management is declined.

Daley, RSJ. DATE: November 30, 2018