The plaintiff sought an advance due to an adjournment of the trial. Three actions were involved, with liability admitted for the first two accidents. The trial was scheduled for November 2022, but new counsel appointed by the defendants caused a delay. The plaintiff argued that an advance was appropriate given the lengthy delay and the injuries suffered. The defendants opposed the advance, questioning the plaintiff's financial situation and the extent of his injuries. The court ordered an appropriate conservative advance of $60,000, considering various factors. The plaintiff, being the successful party, was entitled to costs, which were not deviated from, as confirmed by CNSL J. MALIK and CNSL R. DUL.