Neranjan v. Spencer, 2022 ONSC 2791
Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: CV-17-00574262-0000 DATE: 20220511 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Troy Arunachalam Neranjan and Kassandra Neranjan, Plaintiffs AND: Joan-Mary D. Spencer, Defendant
BEFORE: D.A. Wilson J.
COUNSEL: Anastasia Sukalsky, for the Plaintiffs Genevieve Durigon, for the Defendant
HEARD via teleconference: May 9, 2022
Endorsement
[1] This action appeared in trial scheduling court on April 20 and the solicitor for the Plaintiffs wished to set a trial date. The solicitor for the Defendants objected, indicating there were numerous productions outstanding and other matters to be addressed. As a result, I convened today’s case conference. This is an action for damages for personal injuries allegedly suffered in a car accident that occurred in May 2015. I gather there were 2 plaintiffs initially, but the claims of Kassandra have resolved, leaving those of Mr. Neranjan proceeding to trial.
[2] Ms. Durigon submits that the Plaintiff has not answered undertakings from the examination for discovery which took place in 2018. In addition, numerous refusals were made at the discovery. The Plaintiff was apparently involved in 3 prior motor vehicle accidents and as well, had a WSIB claim after the discovery. The defence wants further productions arising from these other incidents and wishes to bring a motion to compel the Plaintiff to answer the questions that were refused at the discovery.
[3] Ms. Sukalasky advises that further letters have recently been sent out to obtain compliance with the undertakings. The questions refused at the discovery require a motion. While a loss of income claim is being advanced, it has not been quantified. Employment files have not been obtained. It is unclear what, if any, expert reports have been served by the Plaintiff and the defence has not secured any defence medical assessments as a result. Ms. Sukalasky submits that the trial date can be booked now for the latter part of 2023 and the case can be ready for trial by that time.
[4] I am not prepared to book a trial date on a case where there are motions being brought for productions and to compel answers to questions refused and for a further discovery. Such a case is not “trial ready”. It is unclear to me in the 4 years since the examinations for discovery why the Plaintiff has not complied with the undertakings made and the Defendant has not brought a motion to compel answers to the questions refused or for an order requiring further documentary production. Expert reports have not been secured and served. In the 4 years since the discoveries, counsel have had plenty of time to get the case ready for trial. At this moment in time, trial dates are a precious commodity because of the delays that resulted from the suspension of trials at times during the pandemic. I am not prepared to book a trial date on a case that is not ready for trial and may not be for more than a year because in doing so, other cases that are in fact ready for trial cannot secure that trial date. The result is a longer time out for the booking of a trial date.
[5] When an action is set down for trial, counsel are advising the Court that the interlocutory steps have been completed. That is an important event in a litigation file. This case is not ready for trial and I am striking it from the trial list. When the interlocutory matters have been dealt with and the expert reports served or a timetable worked out between counsel for their delivery, the trial coordinator can be contacted, and a trial scheduling court date obtained.
Date: May 11, 2022