Plaintiff is responsible for streamlining her case within the limits of the Simplified Rules: court
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has imposed a strict timetable in a motor vehicle accident case under the Simplified Rules, aiming to balance tight procedural deadlines with fairness for both parties.
The plaintiff, Danette Metivier, alleged significant injuries and income loss resulting from a 2019 motor vehicle accident. Initially, the plaintiff proposed eight witnesses for trial, which would exceed the 25-hour limit for Simplified Rules proceedings. Following judicial direction, her witness list was reduced to five, including medical and vocational experts. This adjustment brought the estimated trial time within the prescribed limits but left no room for opening statements, closing arguments, or the defendant’s planned threshold motion.
The defendant, who plans to call two witnesses, argued that the case could not be completed within the time constraints and expressed concern over potential prejudice if a new trial is required. The defendant also highlighted the need for extensive cross-examinations, including questioning experts and addressing surveillance evidence. The plaintiff countered that the case could be concluded within five days and emphasized the potential financial burden and delay of transferring to the ordinary rules.
The Superior Court acknowledged the complexity of the case, particularly the plaintiff’s detailed medical history and substantial income loss claim, which may exceed the $200,000 Simplified Rules cap. The court emphasized that while the Simplified Rules aim to enhance access to justice and reduce litigation costs, they should not compromise trial fairness.
The court imposed a structured timetable to balance efficiency and fairness. Both parties must adhere to strict deadlines for filing affidavits, expert reports, and a joint document brief.
The court highlighted that the plaintiff bears the responsibility to streamline her case within the constraints of the Simplified Rules. At the same time, the court cautioned against unnecessarily lengthy cross-examinations by the defendant. The decision leaves flexibility for the trial judge to manage the proceedings and address unforeseen delays.
