The court considered the late stage of the proceedings and the absence of new circumstances
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has dismissed a motion to transfer a motor vehicle accident case to the simplified procedure, considering the late stage of the proceedings and the absence of significant new circumstances.
The plaintiff initiated this case following an accident in 2018 and filed a statement of claim in 2019. Subsequently, the plaintiff issued a jury notice and later sought to have the case handled under the simplified procedure, which is generally reserved for lower-value claims to expedite processing.
The court was asked to decide whether to grant leave for the motion after the trial record had already been filed and whether to eliminate the jury notice. The court noted that rule 48.04(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure stipulates that a party cannot initiate any motion without the court’s leave once they have filed a trial record. This leave is granted either when there is a substantial or unexpected change in circumstances or when justice necessitates it. The court cited previous rulings to outline the criteria for granting such leave.
However, the Ontario Superior Court determined that the plaintiff had not demonstrated a substantial or unexpected change in circumstances since the case was set for trial. As early as July 2020, the plaintiff recognized that the claim should proceed under this less complex procedure due to an increase in the monetary jurisdiction for simplified procedure to $200,000. The primary motivation behind the motion appeared to be a reduction in potential cost exposure rather than any new factual developments.
The court also considered the defendant’s argument that granting the motion would prejudice their defence strategy, which they had formulated in anticipation of a jury trial based on the initial high-value claims. Allowing the case to shift to a simplified procedure at this stage would disrupt this strategy.
Ultimately, the court found no justification for amending the proceedings at this late stage, given the absence of significant new circumstances. The court underscored the significance of the initial choice of litigation venue and strategy and its implications for procedural fairness and litigation planning.
