Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Plaintiff sought to switch to the simplified procedure, capping damages at $200,000 and limiting trial length.

• Dispute arose over whether the case could be tried within the simplified procedure’s five-day limit.

• Plaintiff committed to limiting witnesses to fit within the time frame; the defendant projected 8–15 days.

• Court determined trial could be completed in five days with effective case management.

• Defendant argued prejudice due to reliance on a jury strategy; court found no undue disadvantage.

• Jury notice was struck, and the simplified procedure was approved to ensure efficiency and fairness.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and procedural history
The plaintiff, Audrianna A. Ramlingum, was involved in a motor vehicle accident on October 6, 2018. She filed a civil claim on May 25, 2020, seeking $1,000,000 in damages using the ordinary procedure. Subsequently, the plaintiff amended her claim, reducing the amount to $200,000 to qualify under Ontario’s simplified procedure rules.

As part of this procedural change, the plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendants’ jury notice, arguing the case should proceed without a jury given the simplified trial format.

Dispute over trial length
The simplified procedure under Rule 76 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure imposes a five-day limit on trial duration. The plaintiff maintained that a five-day trial was feasible and agreed to restrict the number of witnesses accordingly. In contrast, the defendant estimated a trial duration of 8 to 15 days, suggesting the simplified rules were unsuitable for the case.

After reviewing both parties’ positions, the court concluded that the trial could be completed within five days with efficient case management and strict adherence to time limits.

Jury notice and prejudice concerns
The defendants objected to the striking of the jury notice, claiming they had developed their litigation strategy based on a jury trial and would suffer prejudice if required to proceed before a judge alone.

The court emphasized that there was no significant or non-compensable disadvantage in proceeding without a jury. In its view, a judge-alone trial would uphold fairness, efficiency, and proportionality, especially given the reduced damages and simplified format. Accordingly, the court exercised its discretion to strike the jury notice.

Costs and final order
The plaintiff was awarded $6,500 in costs, which the court found reasonable and proportionate to the motion. The defendants were ordered to pay this amount within 30 days.

The motion was granted in full: the action will proceed under the simplified procedure, and the jury notice was struck.