The injury claimant sued for his losses after he was run down in a crosswalk and later injured again when his vehicle was rear-ended by a vehicle driven by one of the defendants to the lawsuit. The claimant applied for an order that the personal injury case be removed from Fast Track Litigation (Sandhu v. Roy, 2011 BCSC 1653), Rule 15-1 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules. The personal injury lawyer for the claimant sent a number of letters to the lawyer for the defendants stating that the case was not appropriate for the fast track designation. The lawyer for the injury claimant proposed a seven-day trial but, not satisfied with this, the defence set down a 3 day trial unilaterally.
the claimant’s lawyer said that the assessment likely can be done within the three days set aside for trial, however, she said that the trial time estimate was inadequate because the defendants denied liability and the trial would likely take 5 to 7 days. The Court adjourned the trial and took the case off of Fast Track finding,
[13] In a case like this one, where only three days are set aside for trial and the circumstances indicate that significantly more days are required, should the matter proceed to a Trial Management Conference, the court would in most cases be forced to require a second trial date be set, and may often be called on to remove the action from the strictures of the Rule…
[16] I find merit in plaintiff’s application and would accede to the adjournment of the trial and removal of the action from the Fast Track Program. I consider, however, that the orders may not ultimately be necessary if liability for the two collisions were to be admitted. Defence counsel should be given the opportunity to re-assess his position once the effect of this decision is known. Accordingly, I will stipulate that the two orders will become effective should the liability issues not be settled within 14 days of these Reasons.
Posted by Mr. Renn A. Holness