Fancy v. Clayton Developments Ltd.; D'Arcy v. Clayton Professional Centre Ltd.

Fancy v. Clayton Developments Ltd.; D'Arcy v. Clayton Professional Centre Ltd.

Application to consolidate was dismissed because, on the balance of convenience, the differences in timing, evidentiary readiness (notably medical examinations), potential for jury choices and the likelihood of undue delay and increased expense outweighed the limited commonality between the actions.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2002 NSSC 59
Parties
Plaintiff (fancy Matter): Glenford Irving Fancy; Plaintiff (d'arcy Matter): Lorianne Janine D'Arcy; Defendant: Clayton Developments Limited; Defendant: Clayton Professional Centre Limited; Defendant: Edmonds Landscaping Construction Services Limited; Defendant: Edmonds Landscape & Construction Services Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 February 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Personal Injury Actions; Application for Consolidation / Chambers Hearing on Application to Consolidate; Application Dismissed
Outcome
Application to consolidate dismissed; costs awarded to defendants
Legal Topics
Consolidation, Slip and Fall, Balance of Convenience, Independent Medical Examination, Scheduling and Trial Readiness, Costs Award
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Torts Personal Injury Costs Consolidation Slip and Fall Balance of Convenience Independent Medical Examination +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Glenford Irving Fancy

Plaintiff (fancy Matter)

Lorianne Janine D'Arcy

Plaintiff (d'arcy Matter)

Clayton Developments Limited

Defendant

Clayton Professional Centre Limited

Defendant

Edmonds Landscaping Construction Services Limited

Defendant

Edmonds Landscape & Construction Services Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Personal Injury Actions; Application for Consolidation / Chambers Hearing on Application to Consolidate; Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether two separate slip-and-fall actions should be consolidated
  2. 2 Whether the balance of convenience and potential prejudice favors consolidation
  3. 3 Whether consolidation would cause undue delay or increased expense

Ratio Decidendi

Application to consolidate was dismissed because, on the balance of convenience, the differences in timing, evidentiary readiness (notably medical examinations), potential for jury choices and the likelihood of undue delay and increased expense outweighed the limited commonality between the actions.

Court Disposition

Application to consolidate dismissed; costs awarded to defendants

Orders

  • Application to consolidate dismissed
  • Costs awarded to the defendants in the amount of $500.00, payable forthwith: $300.00 against Mr. Fancy and $200.00 against Ms. D'Arcy