Erin Durant’s Post

Stevenson J: Motion for late expert reports refused at pre-trial. A pretrial conference (PTC) occurred on June 20, 2024, where the Defendant first indicated its intention to seek leave for late submission of expert reports, despite these reports being due 60 days prior under rule 53.03. An earlier court order from January 25, 2023, explicitly stated that no new defence expert reports could be submitted after April 30, 2024. The court directed the defendant to file its motion for leave by August 15, 2024, which was subsequently presented. The expert reports were served on August 7, 2024. The motion was set aside pending unsuccessful settlement discussions. The court rejected the defendant's motion for late submission, citing the defendant's lawyer’s inadvertence as insufficient justification for non-compliance with the rules and prior court orders. The court noted that granting leave would rely on discretion under rule 53.03(4), which requires the moving party to demonstrate a reasonable explanation for the delay and to show that no undue prejudice would be caused to the opposing party. Legal precedents, such as Agha v. Munroe and Mohamed v. Juskey, reinforced that mere inadvertence does not meet the necessary criteria for late submissions, emphasizing the importance of timely expert report exchanges to avoid trial delays. The court clarified that while discretion exists, it is not a mere formality, and the standards have become stricter following amendments to the rules in 2022. The court highlighted that in this case, the late submission had rendered the June 20 PTC unproductive due to uncertainties regarding evidence, affecting the plaintiff's case preparation. The defendant's motion was denied, and costs were awarded against them, with a timeline set for written submissions on costs. https://docdro.id/2hqI6ZX

Another late Rule 53 expert report denied. I have been ringing this bell since the March 2023 joint Ontario Trial Lawyers Association and Canadian Defence Lawyers conference, but Justice Stevenson says it best in the latest case conference endorsement: ...I note that in my view, it is those personal issues, although unspecified in the reasons, which distinguish Seo and make it one of the unusual and hopefully rare cases in which the late delivery could be approved after the fact and before trial ... It is time for all counsel to ensure they deliver reports in accordance with the Rules. The public’s interest in better access to justice which is part of the speedier resolution of lawsuits must be protected as well as the interests of the litigants themselves. The circumstances in which time extensions or abridgements will be given are narrow , even under rule 53.03(4). --- All parties need to get serious about complying with the Rules relating to exchanging expert reports.

Under section 9 of C.P.C., the civil Courts have the jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature. 2022 SCMR 1501. SUPREME-COURT. S. 9. Civil Courts, jurisdiction of. Ouster of jurisdiction by special law. Scope. Under section 9 of C.P.C., the civil Courts have the jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature except suits cognizance of which is either expressly or impliedly barred. Ouster of civil Court's jurisdiction cannot be straightaway inferred or congregated in a routine, save as the conditions laid down are fulfilled. Presumption of lack of jurisdiction may not be gathered until the specific law enacted by the legislation debars civil Court from exercising its jurisdiction with specific remedy within the hierarchy which may attain finality of order or the controversy involved.

Summary judgment under Civil Procedure Rule 24 is a procedure that allows a court to make decisions on a case without the need for a full trial. This can be done when there is no genuine dispute as to any material facts of the case, and the court finds that one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The test is whether: 1. The respondent’s defence or claim would have realistic prospects of success if the matter were to proceed to trial; and 2. there is any other good reason for the case to be disposed of a trial. By allowing courts to make decisions on cases without a full trial, summary judgment can save considerable time and resources. Summary judgment is a useful tool for litigants if their claim or defence can be made without the need for a full trial.

DiveInLaw-5 One of the important duties of a Civil court is to deliver Summons to defendants. But what if the plaintiff is ready to take this duty? Yes, they can take the duty. Such summons are called Dasti summons. Dasti literally means serving personally. Upon the court's permission, the plaintiff can personally serve the summon to the defendant. While serving the summon the plaintiff will ensure the compilation of the rules stated in Civil Procedure Code, 1908 under the Order 5 rule 16 and 18. Unlike other summons the refusal to receive the summon from the plaintiff will not be considered as deemed to be served. In this instance, the summon will be re-issued. Do you know why the refusal of Dasti-Summon is not deemed to be served? Let us know in the Comment section. Your Ally with a difference Ritiya Law

Some new rules for those practicing in the SDNY and EDNY. I summarize the more substantive ones in this article

#UPCdatabase #decisionoftheweek Court of Appeal, February 22, 2024, order for expedition of the appeal, UPC_CoA_36/2024 #luxembourgcourtofappeal #expedition #expeditionoftheappeal #rule2241brop #rule2242brop #rule225erop #rule93brop ! Key takeaways: If the appellant takes full advantage of the 15-day deadline for lodging the Statement of appeal and the Statement of grounds of appeal pursuant to Rule 224.1(b) and Rule 224.2(b) RoP, a request for expedition of the appeal proceedings by shortening deadlines must be rejected.: An expedition would not sufficiently take into account the respondent’s ...

The Florida Supreme Court amended Rule 1.510 to tie the response deadline to the filing date rather than the hearing date. The amendment will be effective January 1, 2025. Under the old/current rule, the response to a motion for summary judgment is due 20 days before the hearing on the motion. Unfortunately, hearing time is hard to get and it can be several months (or longer) before a motion for summary judgment to be heard. Under Amended 1.510, the response to a motion for summary judgment will be due no later than 60 days after the motion is filed. I like the rule change.

Out Now: Succession Act 1965 and Related Legislation: A Commentary. Written by one of the leading experts in the field, the aim of this book is to make it as accessible as possible in assisting solicitors, barristers and judges alike. Order now:

SC judgment dated 03/09/2024: Specific Performance - Application under Section 28(1) of Specific Performance act can be filed before Trial Court - In these circumstances, taking note of all the events, the Execution Court justifiably exercised its discretion in favour of the decree­holder(s) by allowing them to deposit the balance consideration- Observed at paragraph 30. In light of the discussion above and on an overall assessment of the facts, we are of the considered view that the respondents had all throughout shown their intention to pay the balance consideration for execution of the sale deed whereas the appellants appeared interested only in challenging the decree before higher Courts. In these circumstances, taking note of all the events, the Execution Court justifiably exercised its discretion in favour of the decree­holder(s) by allowing them to deposit the balance consideration. In our view, therefore, substantial justice has been done to the parties and if we interfere with the impugned order only on the technical ground that the application was not dealt with as one on the original side, grave injustice would be caused to the decree holder(s). More so, when the judgment­debtor(s) themselves applied to the Execution Court for rescinding the contract under Section 28(1) of the 1963 Act, and raised no such jurisdictional issue either before the Execution Court or the High Court. Therefore, in our view, no interference with the impugned Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.29899/2017 Patient order is called for in exercise of our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.