ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
2026 ONSC 1244
COURT FILE NO.: CV-18-00003930-0000
DATE: 2026-03-03
B E T W E E N:
HICKEN, Julienne HICKEN, Doris
ELLIS, Michael C., for the Plaintiff
Plaintiffs
- and -
ABBOTT CHIROPRACTIC AND HEALTH CARE ABBOTT, Wilda Mcclure
ELKIN, Mark, for the Defendants
Defendants
HEARD: February 9, 2026 by video conference
TRIAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ENDORSEMENT
Stewart J.
1 . The main plaintiff, Ms. Hicken, slipped and fell in the parking lot of her chiropractor and sustained a displaced clavicular fracture which required surgeries. Ms. Hicken claims damages for generals, loss of competitive advantage and housekeeping. Ms. Hicken’s mother is an FLA claimant who makes a claim for care provided. Liability and damages are in dispute. The parties ask for 20 days of civil jury time.
2 . This trial was on the trial blitz list for January 2026. An exit pre-trial was conducted in person on December 30, 2025. At the exit pre-trial, the court was advised that defence counsel (Ms. Lewis) recently went on a leave and new counsel (Mr. Elkin, from the same firm), had trial conflicts. Mr. Elkin represented to the court that he now had carriage of the file and would be trial counsel. Accordingly, the trial was adjourned to May 2026, peremptory to the defendants.
3 . Because the action did not settle at the exit pre-trial, the court ordered a trial management conference for February 9, 2026, at 9am via Zoom to address the status of requests to admit, joint document briefs and the potential for a chronology or an agreed statement of facts as well as any other trial management issues. Counsel attended the TMC; the clients did not. (The court had indicated that clients were welcome but not required at the TMC).
4 . The February 9, 2026, TMC did not accomplish anything:
a. Mr. Elkin denied attending the exit pre-trial. When the court reminded Mr. Elkin that he had attended the pre-trial in person, he stated that he attended too many pretrials to recall. It appears that Mr. Elkin was not able to review his file prior to this TMC.
b. The plaintiff served a comprehensive request to admit dated December 17, 2025. The defendant responded, denying every single request. Mr. Elkin said that he had not reviewed the request to admit himself, but his standard instructions are to have his office deny everything in a request to admit until closer to trial.
c. The plaintiff also served an index to a joint document brief dated January 29, 2026. The court’s view is that this joint brief can be shortened and refined. However, plaintiff’s counsel is understandably reluctant to engage in that exercise if the defendant is going to require the proof of every single record for the trial. Mr. Elkin stated that he had not read the proposed index, but this is something he would consider closer to trial.
d. The defendant was not prepared or willing to discuss any other trial management issue.
5 . The defendant’s position seems to be that it is far too early to even think about this trial, much less prepare for it. That is an outdated approach to litigation in Ontario. The court trial manages cases for several reasons, including, but not limited to:
a. Reducing wasted court time; and
b. Permitting the court to accommodate as many cases as possible.
6 . This case should not require 20 days. However, until the parties determine what, if any documents and facts can be agreed upon, it will be impossible to determine the true number of trial days required. Leaving all trial preparation to the last minute is a waste of client time and resources. It also wastes court time and resources. The defendant’s choice to deny everything in the plaintiff’s request to admit, with a stated plan to revisit those denials at some unspecified point in future, only drives up the costs for all parties and keeps an unnecessary number of court days on hold.
7 . This is one 20-day civil jury trial involving two plaintiffs and two defendants. However, that one trial is part of a larger justice system. Counsel on any case owe their primary duties to their clients, but they also owe duties to the profession and the courts, including conducting cases in a way that does not cause systemic harm. In addition to the harms described above (in terms of wasted court time), in this case, a 9am TMC slot was used by this case, thereby denying it to other parties. The plaintiff’s efforts to narrow the issues for trial (serving a request to admit and a proposed joint book of documents) were rebuffed by the defendant, who is not prepared to address these issues until closer to trial.
8 . I therefore make the following orders:
a. the Brampton trial coordinator shall call this case for an exit pretrial three to four weeks prior to the May 2026 Brampton blitz sitting.
b. The parties shall provide a copy of this endorsement to their clients.
c. The costs for this TMC shall be addressed by written costs submissions to be served, filed and uploaded to Case Centre on the following schedule:
i. Plaintiffs by March 17, 2026, at 4pm;
ii. Defendants by March 31, 2026, at 4pm.
iii. No reply is permitted.
d. These deadlines cannot be varied unless by court order. If submissions are not received by these deadlines, the court will proceed on the basis that costs are not being sought.
e. Costs submissions will be double spaced, in 12-point font, and three pages, maximum (exclusive of offers, authorities and bills of costs).
L.B. Stewart J.
Released: March 3, 2026
2026 ONSC 1244
COURT FILE NO.: CV-18-00003930-0000
DATE: 2026-03-03
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: HICKEN, Julienne HICKEN, Doris Plaintiffs - and – ABBOTT CHIROPRACTIC AND HEALTH CARE ABBOTT, Wilda Mcclure Defendants TRIAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ENDORSEMENT Stewart J.
Released: March 3, 2026