April 27, 2009

Consolidation Rejected

Filed under: 1 — ruleswatch @ 6:49 am

In Best v. Pontius et al., C.A. No. 304237 2009 NSCA 39, Roscoe, J.A. relied squarely on deference to reject an appeal of a refusal to consolidate the trial of two separate motor vehicle accident claims which had occurred four years apart. Consolidation was sought mainly on the grounds that medical evidence was common to the two actions. The appeal was rejected:


[12] With respect, the appellant’s arguments amount to a request for this court to



reassess and reweigh all of the relevant factors to determine if we might have

exercised the discretion differently. That is not our role. The chambers judge

applied the proper principles of law, considered all of the relevant factors and no

patent injustice results from the decision to deny the application for consolidation.

Given the circumstances, including the time that elapsed between the two separate

accidents, the two different applicable insurance schemes, and the differences in

readiness for trial of the two actions, the chambers judge reached a decision that

deserves deference from this court.

The decision applied the Civil Procedure Rules, 1972.


TrackBack URI

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: