A student sustained significant injuries while playing at school-sanctioned event
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice denied a school board's motion to separate liability and damages hearings in a personal injury case involving a student, concluding that bifurcation would not shorten the proceedings or save costs.
Hudson LaPointe and his parents initiated a lawsuit against Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board after Hudson sustained significant injuries during a school-sanctioned three-pitch softball tournament. Hudson, who was pitching without protective facial equipment, was hit in the face by a line drive, resulting in facial fractures, scarring, nasal injuries, and a traumatic brain injury. The plaintiffs sought over $5 million in damages, with both liability and damages being contested.
The school board argued that liability and damages are distinct and should be tried separately to potentially reduce trial time and costs. They highlighted that the liability trial would take only five days compared to a combined trial of fifteen. They noted that the evidence for liability and damages would largely come from different witnesses.
However, the plaintiffs opposed bifurcation, arguing that there is significant overlap in the evidence for both issues. They pointed out that some witnesses, including Hudson’s teammates and their biomechanical expert, would need to testify at both trials if bifurcation were granted. The plaintiffs also emphasized that separating the trials could lead to repeated evidence and inconsistent findings.
The Superior Court noted that under Rule 6.1.01(2), the court must consider several factors in deciding whether to bifurcate trials, including the potential to shorten or simplify the proceeding, the separability of issues, and the risk of prejudice to the parties
The court found that bifurcation would not necessarily shorten the proceeding or save costs, particularly given the potential for appeals and the need for some witnesses to testify twice. Additionally, the court noted that issues of liability and damages in this case were not separable, as evidence on causation and the standard of care overlapped with both issues.
Moreover, the proximity of the trial date weighed against granting the motion. The court highlighted the significant trial preparation already underway by the plaintiffs, which would be disrupted by an order for separate trials.
The court ultimately concluded that separating the hearings would unduly prejudice the plaintiffs and was not in the interests of justice. As such, the motion for bifurcation was dismissed, with costs awarded to the plaintiffs.
