Bondy-Rafael et al. v. Potrebic et al., (2015) 345 O.A.C. 1 (DC)

• Judge: Gordon, R.S.J., Molloy and Corbett, JJ.
• Court: Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Case Date: June 05, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2015), 345 O.A.C. 1 (DC);2015 ONSC 3655

Bondy-Rafael v. Potrebic (2015), 345 O.A.C. 1 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] O.A.C. TBEd. DE.001

Krystal Lynn Bondy-Rafael, Tanner Curtis Eyraud, a minor by his Litigation Guardian Leeann Rafael, Spencer Ouelette, and Leeann Rafael (appellants/plaintiffs) v. Soka Potrebic, Dane Potrebic, the Estate of Luigi Pipolo by his Estate Trustee, Enza Mary Pipolo, Enza Mary Pipolo, Anthony Lino Pipolo and Anthony Pipolo Incorporated and the Corporation of the City of Windsor (respondents/defendants)

(204/15; 2015 ONSC 3655)

Indexed As: Bondy-Rafael et al. v. Potrebic et al.

Court of Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

Divisional Court

Gordon, R.S.J., Molloy and Corbett, JJ.

December 3, 2015.

Summary:

This action involved a motor vehicle accident in which two children sustained catastrophic injuries. A motion judge directed bifurcation of liability and damages, over the objection of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs appealed. The defendants argued that the motion judge had inherent jurisdiction to order bifurcation, notwithstanding the language of rule 6.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure: "With the consent of the parties, the court may order a separate hearing on one or more issues in a proceeding, including separate hearings on the issues of liability and damages."

The Ontario Divisional Court set aside the bifurcation order. On a plain reading of rule 6.1.01, a motion judge had a discretion to order bifurcation, but only if all parties consented. Even with the consent of the parties, the court was not required to order bifurcation, but had no power to do so without consent. The consent of the parties was a pre-condition to the exercise of the discretion. Corbett, J., agreed that the appeal should be allowed, but read rule 6.1, "not as a substantial derogation of the court's inherent jurisdiction to control its own process, but as a slight expansion of it."

Courts - Topic 7425

Provincial courts - Ontario - Supreme Court - Inherent jurisdiction - [See Practice - Topic 5204 ].

Practice - Topic 5204

Trials - General - Severance of issues or parties - General - A motion judge directed bifurcation of liability and damages in this personal injury motor vehicle accident case, over the objection of the plaintiffs - On appeal, the specific issue was whether the motion judge had any power to make the order without the consent of all parties - Rule 6.1.01 (effective January 1, 2010) provided: "With the consent of the parties, the court may order a separate hearing on one or more issues in a proceeding, including separate hearings on the issues of liability and damages." - The defendants argued that the motion judge continued to have inherent jurisdiction to order bifurcation - The Ontario Divisional Court set aside the order - "[T]he Rule is clear and comprehensive and requires consent as a precondition to the motion judge having any discretion to exercise. ... It may not necessarily follow from this decision that a trial judge who has commenced a trial would have no jurisdiction to direct the order in which evidence is to be called in that particular trial, including that all of the evidence on one particular point would be called prior to the evidence on another point. Likewise, where there is provision in the Rules for deciding an issue by summary judgment or by a ruling on a point of law, that situation might not necessarily be the same as a motion for bifurcation of a trial, such that Rule 6.1.01 might not be paramount. Our ruling in this case should be confined to the specific issue before us - whether a motion judge can order bifurcation of a trial without the consent of the parties." - See paragraphs 37 to 39.

Cases Noticed:

Wang et al. v. Byford-Harvey et al., [2012] O.T.C. Uned. 3030; 110 O.R.(3d) 703; 2012 ONSC 3030, refd to. [paras. 8, 63, footnote 27].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 33, refd to. [paras. 12, 46, footnotes 1, 16].

Elcano Acceptance Ltd. et al. v. Richmond, Stambler & Mills (1986), 16 O.A.C. 69; 55 O.R.(2d) 56 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 15, 63 footnotes 2, 27].

R. v. Rose (J.), [1998] 3 S.C.R. 262; 232 N.R. 83; 115 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [paras. 16, 47, footnotes 3, 17].

Ziebenhaus et al. v. Bahlieda et al. (2014), 319 O.A.C. 111; 2014 ONSC 138, refd to. [para. 16, footnote 3].

College Housing Co-Operative Ltd. et al. v. Baxter Student Housing Ltd. et al., [1976] 2 S.C.R. 475; 5 N.R. 515; [1976] 1 W.W.R. 1; 57 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 17, footnote 17].

Montreal Trust Co. v. Churchill Forest Industries (Man.) Ltd., [1971] 4 W.W.R. 542, refd to. [para. 17, footnote 5].

Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Szilagyi Farms Ltd. and Szilagyi (1988), 29 O.A.C. 357; 65 O.R.(2d) 433; 28 C.P.C.(2d) 231 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18, footnote 5], dist. [para. 46, footnote 15].

Waxman et al. v. Waxman et al., [2011] O.T.C. Uned. 4707; 2011 ONSC 4707, refd to. [para. 18, footnote 6].

EnerWorks Inc. v. Glenbarra Energy Solutions Inc. et al., [2012] O.T.C. Uned. 414; 2012 ONSC 414, refd to. [para. 18, footnote 6].

Kovach v. Kovach et al. (2010), 261 O.A.C. 190; 100 O.R.(3d) 608 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 22, 46, footnote 16].

Whiteley (Wm.) Ltd. v. Gauthier et al., [2010] O.T.C. Uned. 396; 86 C.P.C.(6th) 343; 2010 ONSC 396, refd to. [para. 28, foontote 8].

Trinity Anglican Church v. Janeiro, [2012] O.J. No. 379, refd to. [para. 29, footnote 9].

Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corp. No. 831 v. Khan et al., [2012] O.T.C. Uned. 5037; 2012 ONSC 5037, refd to. [para. 30, footnote 10].

Dickson v. DiMichele, 2014 ONSC 2513, refd to. [paras. 31, 79, footnotes 11, 43].

Ormerod v. Strathroy Middlesex General Hospital et al., [2013] O.T.C. Uned. 1499; 2013 ONSC 1499, refd to. [para. 31, footnote 11].

Hamilton (City) v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 ONSC 1043, refd to. [para. 31, footnote 11].

Soulliere et al. v. Robitaille Estate et al., [2013] O.T.C. Uned. 5073; 2013 ONSC 5073, refd to. [para. 34, footnote 12].

Ziebenhaus et al. v. Bahlieda et al. (2015), 336 O.A.C. 135; 386 D.L.R.(4th) 156; 2015 ONCA 471, affing. (2014), 319 O.A.C. 111; 119 O.R.(3d) 275 (Div. Ct.), affing. [2012] O.T.C. Uned. 3787; 2012 ONSC 3787, refd to. [para. 49, footnote 19].

Garland v. Consumers' Gas Co., [2004] 1 S.C.R. 629; 319 N.R. 38; 186 O.A.C. 128; 2004 SCC 25, refd to. [para. 58, footnote 24].

Woodbury et al. v. Woodbury et al., [2012] O.T.C. Uned. 4817; 2012 ONSC 4817, refd to. [para. 60, footnote 25].

Woodbury et al. v. Woodbury et al., [2013] O.T.C. Uned. 7736; 2013 ONSC 7736 (Master), refd to. [para. 62, footnote 26].

Woodbury v. Woodbury, 2014 ONSC 3149, refd to. [para. 63, footnote 27].

Bourne v. Saundy (1993), 23 C.P.C.(3d) 334; 49 M.V.R.(2d) 65, (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 63, footnote 27].

Duffy v. Gillespie et al. (1997), 105 O.A.C. 283; 36 O.R.(3d) 443 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 63, footnote 27].

Hryniak v. Mauldin, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 87; 453 N.R. 51; 314 O.A.C. 1; 2014 SCC 7, refd to. [para. 64, footnote 28].

Unwin et al. v. Crothers et al., [2005] O.T.C. 571; 76 O.R.(3d) 453, refd to. [para. 68, footnote 29].

Schulman v. Ganz, 2015 ONSC 3254 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 71, footnote 31].

Klasios v. Klasios, 2015 ONSC 1173 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 72, footntoe 32].

Grossman v. Grossman, 2014 ONSC 2090, refd to. [para. 72, footnote 32].

Balsmeier v. Blasmeier, 2014 ONSC 5305, refd to. [para. 72, footnote 32].

Dillon v. Dillon, [2013] O.T.C. Uned. 7679; 2013 ONSC 7679 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 72, footnote 32].

Simioni v. Simioni, [2009] O.T.C. Uned. 189; 74 R.F.L.(6th) 202 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 72, footnote 32].

Mantella v. Mantella, [2006] O.T.C. 322; 80 O.R.(3d) 270; 267 D.L.R.(4th) 532; 27 R.F.L.(6th) 57 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 72, footnote 32].

Marton v. Marton, [1988] O.J. No. 1358 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 72, footnote 32].

Johnson v. Johnson, [1986] O.J. No. 2506 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 72, footnote 32].

C.M.G. v. R.G., [2013] O.T.C. Uned. 961; 2013 CarswellOnt 1461 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 72, footnote 32].

Hall v. Sabri, 2012 ONSC 6342 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 72, footnote 32].

Central Sun Mining v. Vector Engineering Inc. (2015), 23 C.P.C.(3d) 629 (Ont. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 73, footnote 33].

Vachon v. 1307839 Ontario Ltd. et al., [2013] O.T.C. Uned. 7180; 2013 ONSC 7180 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 73, footnote 33].

Karbasian v. Batorowicz, 2015 ONSC 6502 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 73, footnote 33].

Sweda Farms Ltd. et al. v. Egg Farmers of Ontario et al., [2014] O.T.C. Uned. 1200; 2014 ONSC 1200, refd to. [para. 76, footnote 37].

Sweda Farms Ltd. et al. v. Egg Farmers of Ontario et al., [2014] O.A.C. Uned. 773; 2014 ONCA 878, leave to appeal refused 2015 CanLII 39803 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 76, footnote 38].

Fehr v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 2015 ONSC 6931, refd to. [para. 76, footnote 39].

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. v. Greenspoon, 2015 ONSC 6882, refd to. [para. 76, footnote 39].

Tetrault v. Nussbaum, 2015 ONSC 6226, refd to. [para. 76, footnote 39].

Jeliazov v. John Doe, 2015 ONSC 5856, refd to. [para. 76, footnote 39].

TD Bank v. Jolly, 2015 ONSC 5886, refd to. [para. 76, footnote 39].

Munas v. Yusuf, 2015 ONSC 5443, refd to. [para. 76, footnote 39].

Martin v. Attard Plumbing Ltd., 2015 ONSC 5037, refd to. [para. 76, footnote 39].

Bayer Inc. v. Belfield Investment, 2015 ONSC 5029, refd to. [para. 76, footnote 39].

Sutton v. Balinsky, 2015 ONSC 3081, refd to. [para. 76, footnote 39].

Gauthier v. Lahey, 2015 ONSC 4696, refd to. [para. 76, footnote 39].

R & G Draper Farms (Keswick) Ltd. v. Nature's Finest, 2015 ONSC 4620, refd to. [para. 76, footnote 39].

F. v. Greater Sudbury (Police Servie), 2015 ONSC 3937, refd to. [para. 76, footnote 39].

Barsheshet v. Aviva Canada, 2015 ONSC 4439, refd to. [para. 76, footnote 39].

Cloutier v. Q Residentia LP Corp., 2015 ONSC 4431, refd to. [para. 76, footnote 39].

Empire Communities v. R., 2015 ONSC 4355, refd to. [para. 76, footnote 39].

Brown v. Belair and Wawanesa, 2015 ONSC 4231, refd to. [para. 76, footnote 39].

Rahimi v. Hatami, 2015 ONSC 4266, refd to. [para. 76, footnote 39].

231303 Ontario Inc. v. J.M. Food Service Ltd., 2015 ONSC 4029, refd to. [para. 76, footnote 39].

MSI Spergel v. X-Act Systems Inc., 2015 ONSC 3692, refd to. [para. 76, footnote 39].

Cross Bridges Inc. v. Z-Teca Foods Inc., 2015 ONSC 2632, refd to. [para. 76, footnote 39].

Business Development Insurance Ltd. v. Caledon Mayfield Estates Inc., 2015 ONSC 1978, refd to. [para. 76, footnote 39].

EFI Technologies Ltd. v. Silani Sweet Cheese Ltd., 2015 ONSC 789, refd to. [para. 76, footnote 39].

Miaskowski v. Persaud, 2015 ONSC 1654, refd to. [para. 76, footnote 39].

Guertin v. Legault, 2015 ONSC 1391, refd to. [para. 76, footnote 39].

Frank Loreto v. Bernie Romano, 2015 ONSC 898, refd to. [para. 76, footnote 39].

Nemeth v. Yasin, 2015 ONSC 558, refd to. [para. 76, footnote 39].

Vynckier v. Brown and State Farm, 2015 ONSC 376, refd to. [para. 76, footnote 39].

Nguyen v. SSQ Life Insurance Co. Inc., 2014 ONSC 6405, refd to. [para. 76, footnote 39].

Fernandes v. Araujo, 2014 ONSC 6432, refd to. [para. 76, footnote 39].

France v. Kuman, 2014 ONSC 5890, refd to. [para. 76, footnote 39].

Landrie v. Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer, 2014 ONSC 4008, refd to. [para. 76, footnote 39].

Beatty v. Best Theratronics, 2014 ONSC 3376, refd to. [para. 76, footnote 39].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Civil Procedure (Ont.) - see Rules of Court (Ont.).

Rules of Court (Ont.), rule 6.1.01 [para. 10].

Counsel:

Alan Rachlin, for the appellants;

Sheldon Gilbert, for the respondents, Soka and Dane Potrebic.

This appeal was heard on June 5, 2015, before Gordon, R.S.J., Molloy and Corbett, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court, who delivered the following judgment and reasons, dated December 3, 2015:

Molloy, J. (Gordon, R.S.J., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 41;

Corbett, J., concurring in the result - see paragraphs 42 to 93.