Hains v. Granat

Hains v. Granat

The motion for a Date Assignment Conference was refused because the court was not satisfied defendants were lagging and the discovery of Rebecca Granat is central to resolving the consent issue and insurer liability; the efficient administration of justice required targeted pre‑trial steps to be completed first, so the court exercised its case management discretion to impose deadlines and defer the request for a DAC to a returnable date in September 2011.

Citation
2011 NSSC 263
Parties
Plaintiff: Frank Joseph Hains; Defendant: Sharon Granat; Defendant: Rebecca Granat; Defendant: Nordic Insurance Company of Canada/La Nordique Compagnie D’Assurance Du Canada; Third Party: Kathleen Hains
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Motor Vehicle Personal Injury Action / Motion for Permission to Request a Date Assignment Conference (pre‑trial Scheduling)
Outcome
Motion to set a Date Assignment Conference denied without prejudice; court imposed timelines and scheduled returnable motion to reassess setting of DAC
Legal Topics
Date Assignment Conference, Discovery, Consent to Drive, Pleadings, Case Scheduling
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Insurance Law Date Assignment Conference Discovery Consent to Drive Pleadings Case Scheduling

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frank Joseph Hains

Plaintiff

Sharon Granat

Defendant

Rebecca Granat

Defendant

Nordic Insurance Company of Canada/La Nordique Compagnie D’Assurance Du Canada

Defendant

Kathleen Hains

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Motor Vehicle Personal Injury Action / Motion for Permission to Request a Date Assignment Conference (pre‑trial Scheduling)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should grant a motion under CP Rule 4.13(2) to set a Date Assignment Conference before all discovery and disclosure are complete
  2. 2 Whether defendants are lagging in discovery such that Rule 4.13(2)(a) is satisfied
  3. 3 Whether discovery of defendant Rebecca Granat is pivotal to determine consent to drive and insurer liability and therefore to the readiness for a DAC

Ratio Decidendi

The motion for a Date Assignment Conference was refused because the court was not satisfied defendants were lagging and the discovery of Rebecca Granat is central to resolving the consent issue and insurer liability; the efficient administration of justice required targeted pre‑trial steps to be completed first, so the court exercised its case management discretion to impose deadlines and defer the request for a DAC to a returnable date in September 2011.

Court Disposition

Motion to set a Date Assignment Conference denied without prejudice; court imposed timelines and scheduled returnable motion to reassess setting of DAC

Orders

  • Discovery of Defendant Sharon Granat and, if required, the Plaintiff to be completed by June 30, 2011
  • Disclosure requirements and undertakings of counsel to be completed by June 30, 2011