I have considered these principles from the authorities and all the circumstances of this case and have concluded that this case is not an appropriate one for the invocation of Rule 57(15). On one hand, the physical damage and loss of income issues were different causes of action, and the representative action aspect of this proceeding would have been avoided had the loss of income claim not been advanced. This would have dispensed with three brief witnesses, somewhat shortened the testimony of others, and shortened legal argument. On the other hand, I estimate that only ten percent of the trial was allocated to the loss of income issue (and in reaching this conclusion I have placed no weight on materials appended to counsel’s written arguments). Furthermore, this litigation was not on the order of complexity and cost seen in British Columbia v. Worthington, which might call for a more exacting Rule 57(15) analysis. The loss of income issue did not increase the costs and expense of the action to a “very substantial degree”, and this is not one of those “relatively rare cases” for the invocation of the court’s discretion to sever issues for the purposes of costs. (d) Effect of Severance on Rule 37(24)
Get a full legal research memo!
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.