When will a motion to bifurcate liability and damages in a motor vehicle negligence case be dismissed?

Second, the appellants noted the decision of Moore J. in Ahmed v. Azzizzida, [2006] O.J. No. 4995, 40 C.P.C. (6th) 289 (S.C.J.), at paras. 21-22, where he dismissed a motion to bifurcate liability and damages brought by a defendant in a motor vehicle negligence case: It cannot be fairly concluded, therefore, that a trial on liability issues will, to use the words of Tucker J. (above), solve the case on a final basis. The parties have every right to be enthusiastic and adamant in their positions but as long as they remain so and as long as the positions are diametrically opposed, as appears clearly to be the situation here, there can be no real likelihood of a clear advantage to all parties produced by an order to bifurcate. The claimed savings in overall trial time and expense may be illusory. Whether the responding defendants on this motion are absolved of [page42 ]any responsibility for the injuries and damages of the plaintiff pedestrians or not, there is no guarantee that that outcome will be accepted by all defendants, be they winners or losers on the issue, and a damages trial may well be required and appeals on either or both of liability and damages outcomes may well follow. At this point, it is impossible to predict whether it will be advisable or possible to try damages issues with the same jury that determines liability issues in a bifurcated trial. Separate trials with but one jury may prove burdensome to that jury, depending upon how long the interval between trials may be. Trials involving two juries could lead to differing findings of fact by each jury and outcomes difficult for the parties, let alone an appeal court, to reconcile.