Court Denies Defendant’s Request to Bifurcate Trial into Separate Hearings for Liability and Damages Under New Rule 6.1.01 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure
Hudson Lapointe suffered serious and permanent injuries when he was struck in the face by a line drive while pitching in a school-sanctioned interschool three pitch softball tournament. Due to the severe nature of the injuries and lack of facial protection, Hudson and his parents commenced a civil action against the Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board.
In this case, both liability and damages are in dispute. The defendant school board filed a motion to bifurcate liability and damages. Such motions are typically aimed at simplifying proceedings, reducing unnecessary costs, and ensuring fairness. The court is responsible for weighing these considerations.
Previously, bifurcation required mutual consent of the parties until July 1, 2024, when Rule 6.1.01(1) was amended to allow a party to bring a motion to bifurcate with or without the consent of the other parties.
Oatley Vigmond opposed the defendant’s request to bifurcate the trial. The Court agreed with Oatley Vigmond, determining that bifurcation was impractical under the circumstances. The Court noted that with the trial scheduled to begin in September 2024, bifurcation could lead to further delays and increased costs, which would significantly prejudice the plaintiffs as they have already begun considerable trial preparation. Additionally, the Court highlighted the necessity for clear severability of issues. It agreed with Oatley Vigmond that due to the overlap in witnesses and evidence relevant to both liability and damages, bifurcation would be less practical and likely to cause prejudice. The Court also reasoned that, given the time that has passed since the incident, further delays could affect witnesses’ recollections and hinder the primary truth-seeking function of the trial.
The Court denied the defendant’s motion, concluding that bifurcating the trial into separate hearings for liability and damages was not justified. Additionally, the Court ordered the defendant school board to pay costs to Oatley Vigmond.
This case is significant because it demonstrates that despite the changes to Rule 6.1.01(1), which no longer mandates mutual consent from both parties for bifurcation, plaintiffs’ rights to a unified trial remain protected. The ruling highlights that, despite the procedural change, the Court maintains that bifurcation should only be granted when it is clearly demonstrated to enhance judicial efficiency and fairness.
LaPointe v. Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board, 2024 ONSC 4040
