The court struck parts of Mr. Schmeichel’s tax appeal that lacked a clear inventory-adjustment basis, but allowed him to file an amended notice by June 26, 2026.
The Tribunal partially granted a stay, pausing retaliation allegations under section 14.1 while allowing discrimination claims under section 7 to proceed in phases.
Because the parties jointly requested the variation and concluded mediation would not be beneficial at this time, the Tribunal amended the Bifurcation and Scheduling Order to remove the March 6, 2026 mediation and directed parties to notify the Tribunal if they later seek mediation, preferably at least six weeks prior to any proposed mediation date for Tribunal member participation.
Post-trial family law reasons on costs, spousal support repayment, and a litigation advance. The court made no order as to costs, dismissed repayment of support, and ordered repayment of the $125,000 advance.
The Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed a motion to bifurcate a defamation trial, finding the UBC and Twitter defendant issues were too interwoven.
The Tribunal limited this complaint’s scope, refused extra expert witnesses, ordered further particulars, rejected issue estoppel and abuse of process, and denied bifurcation.
The court dismissed retailers’ request to bifurcate and temporarily stay a proposed class action over alleged defective dishwashers, finding no sufficient prejudice or efficiency gain.
The Tribunal ordered bifurcation: Phase I to determine liability only and Phase II for remedies if necessary; it restricted discovery in Phase I to exclude matters solely relating to remedies while requiring Google LLC to produce, subject to overriding court orders, any documents concerning remedies that it produces to the US Department of Justice in the related US remedies discovery; the Tribunal adopted the Parties' proposed schedule and other case management measures (protective order, timing for productions, discovery limits, hearing date and length) to promote efficiency and timely resol…
Motion to bifurcate dismissed because the appellant was largely responsible for procedural delay, there were not compelling reasons to separate the appeals, and a sentence appeal concerning a dangerous offender designation would require review of the predicate offences and trial record, creating inefficient duplication of work.