The plaintiff brought a motion seeking to dismiss the defendant insurer's upcoming summary judgment motion and to prohibit the calling of oral evidence at that hearing.
The plaintiff argued that conflicting evidence regarding his employment status and vehicle use created credibility issues requiring a trial.
The court dismissed these requests, finding it premature to dismiss the summary judgment motion before cross-examinations were completed.
The court also held that it lacked jurisdiction to usurp the motion judge's authority under Rule 20.04 to decide whether oral evidence is necessary to resolve the dispute.
