What is the test for striking the jury in a blended trial?

The appellant contends that the trial judge erred, near the end of the first of the two blended trials and after 12 days of testimony, by striking the jury. The starting point for the appellant's submission is the proposition that a trial by jury in a civil case is a substantive right that should not be taken away without just cause or cogent reasons: see King v. Colonial Homes Ltd., 1956 CanLII 13 (SCC), [1956] S.C.R. 528, [1956] S.C.J. No. 32. The appellant submits that this was a typical thin-skull case well-suited to a jury and that the trial judge was provided with a well-known model jury charge from a trial very similar to this trial. Finally, the appellant points out that in her ruling striking the jury, the [page468] trial judge was particularly complimentary about this jury, describing it as "interested, engaged and observant".