![\"images[1].jpg\"](\"https:\/\/www.cavanagh.ca\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2006\/03\/images1.jpg\")
In\u00a0actions brought under simplified procedure (also known as “Rule 76” actions), the plaintiff’s claim is generally limited to a maximum of $50,000.\u00a0Examinations for discovery\u00a0and pre-trial cross-examinations aren’t allowed. The whole process is supposed to be streamlined so as to reduce the expense of litigation.<\/p>\n
It doesn’t always work out that way. In Inscan Contractors (Ontario) Inc. v. Halton District School Board and Decommissioning Consulting Services Ltd.<\/em><\/strong><\/a>, the plaintiff recovered damages\u00a0of $50,000 (the maximum) against the defendant Halton. The action was dismissed as against the defendant DCS.\u00a0But the losing defendant, Halton, was ordered to pay costs that were almost two and a half times the amount of the plaintiff’s claim.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Costs of about $80,000\u00a0were ordered in favour of the successful plaintiff. To add insult to injury though, Mr. Justice Siegel made a “Bullock order”. This enabled the plaintiff to recoup from Halton the costs that it was ordered to pay to the defendant DCS (about $41,000).<\/p>\n Interestingly, Justice Siegel mentioned several times, that because this was a Rule 76 action, the parties did not know much about each other’s cases. The clear implication is, that the case was made more <\/em>expensive by the lack of examinations for discovery. This is probably not what was intended by the Rules Committee in creating “simplified procedure”.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In\u00a0actions brought under simplified procedure (also known as “Rule 76” actions), the plaintiff’s claim is generally limited to a maximum of $50,000.\u00a0Examinations for discovery\u00a0and pre-trial cross-examinations aren’t allowed. The whole process is supposed to be streamlined so as to reduce … Continue reading